by Ryan McKeen
The Republicans have just filed a hard-hitting brief in the Bysiewicz case on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. If you thought issues of standing were boring, this brief may change your mind. The gloves are off.
The gist of the brief is that Bysiewicz has not presented any evidence showing that the Connecticut Democratic Party has contested the legitimacy and applicability of her experience. Keep in mind, the court can only consider the evidence before it, so what you may read in the press is not relevant to the court’s decision. Judge Sheldon will base his ruling on the record.
This brief comes in the wake of Bysiewicz withdrawing her motion earlier in the week to have Democratic Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo testify.
If the Republicans are right, the Bysiewicz case would be dismissed. If Judge Sheldon dismisses the case, he will not reach the merits of case. At this point, both in terms of money on hand and polling numbers Bysiewicz is well ahead in the Democratic Attorney General’s race. If she were to become the nominee under these circumstances, she may have to bring the case all over again or run the risk of being sued by the Republican nominee.
I’ve written several times before on the issue of standing. I think Ms. Bysiewicz has standing to bring the case:
Does someone challenge Bysiewicz’s standing to bring the action? I’m on record in this blog as saying that she does presently have standing to bring this action, but my blog is not law. Some one may argue that in order to bring the action she must actually be the nominee. I don’t see it that way, but standing is a threshold issue. If a court rules she doesn’t have it, then her action would be dismissed — a fatal blow to her campaign. On the one hand, I think she has standing to bring it. But on the other, I think an opponent may want to raise the issue. 3/5/2010
And again:
Bysiewicz v. DiNardo is a prime example of a controversy that is ripe for a declaratory action as uncertainty abounds. When the case is resolved for better or worse, Ms. Bysiewicz, the CT Democratic Party, and the Secretary of State’s Office will have answers in place of uncertainty and that’s good for all involved. 2/23/2010
But it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters is what evidence is before the court and I don’t know what’s in evidence.
Here are some snippets from the Republican’s brief:
This lawsuit is nothing but an attempt to obtain a judicial endorsement regarding her capabilities, thereby enabling her to officiously tout and advertise that she is perfectly suited and legally anointed to be Attorney General.
Further:
The plaintiff has manipulated the judicial process all in an effort to gain an upper hand by using the media as a tool to garner attention for her candidacy, swaying public opinion and influencing delegates who will decide her fate at the upcoming convention, and ultimately attempting to win the general election.
More:
Indeed, Bysiewicz has turned this suit into a media circus issuing proclamation after proclamation about her merits rather than presenting any evidence that she is aggrieved.
Fighting words for sure. Look for the Bysiewicz team to hit back. The issue of standing gives Judge Sheldon grounds to rule on the case without touching the thorny issues of Ms. Bysiewicz’s qualifications under the statute and/or the constitutional arguments.
After all the back and forth, the fate of this fascinating case may well rest on whether or not there’s sufficient evidence in the record to show that Ms. Bysiewicz has standing “to obtain the relief that she seeks”.
Read the entire brief for yourself below: