Monday, August 13, 2018
Page 3
Early Terms Becerra’s Position on Eligibility ‘Absurd,’ ‘Nonsensical’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Los Angeles attorney Eric P. Early on Friday pressed his contention that the California Supreme Court should grant review of the denial by the Court of Appeal of his writ petition aimed at bumping Xavier Becerra’s name from the Nov. 6 ballot as a candidate for attorney general, the post he now holds by appointment.
Early on Friday filed in the state Supreme Court a reply to the opposition presented Thursday by Becerra. The high court on Wednesday requested informal briefs, on an expedited basis, in response to Early’s petition for review filed that day.
The opposition termed Early’s theory that Becerra is statutory ineligible to serve as attorney general “far-fetched.” Early’s reply, in turn, asserted that Berra is asking the high court to interpret the governing statute “broadly (and to absurd and nonsensical extremes).”
Government Code §12503 provides:
““No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office.”
Early Comments
Early commented to the MetNews Friday:
“We are gratified that the California Supreme Court requested immediate briefing on this important case. Mr. Becerra was an inactive member of the State Bar for 26 straight years before being appointed Attorney General by the Governor. By law, Mr. Becerra is ineligible to be elected Attorney General.
“As we state in the Reply brief filed today, Mr. Becerra’s interpretation of Government Code section 12503, ‘would allow someone to pass the Bar, be sworn in, go on ‘inactive’ status, never practice a day of law in his or her life, become a world-famous actor and then run and be elected California Attorney General without ever having a shred of legal experience. [T]his would be completely contrary to the meaning, intent and actual language of section 12503.’
“Our state’s top legal officer must be more than just a professional politician.”
First Impression
The brief sets forth:
“The issue presented in this case—whether inactive status with the State Bar (dining which time the practice of law is prohibited) counts toward satisfaction of the five-year ‘admitted to practice’ requirement of Government Code §12503—has never been decided by any court. This is an issue of tremendous importance. Candidates who are legally ineligible to be elected cannot be foisted on the people of California for their vote. Real Party In Interest Becerra seeks election to the Office of Attorney General in November of 2018, but will have only been an active member of the State Bar for one year, ten months and five days….”
The brief declares that Early and his campaign committee “merely seek to impose the ‘admitted to practice’ requirement to mean what it logically does mean—the actual ability to practice law for the five years immediately preceding election.”
Early takes the position that Becerra was not “admitted to practice” while on inactive status because it would have been a misdemeanor had he practiced law during that period. Becerra contends that he meets the requirement of having “been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years” because he was admitted June 14, 1985. More than five years ago, and was never disbarred.
Subverting Statute
Early reply brief contends:
“Permitting this five-year requirement to be fulfilled through ‘inactive’ membership., where the practice of law is prohibited, would turn the statute on its head. Further, the legislative purpose and policy behind the statute (i.e. ensuring candidates have ‘actual experience and skill in law’) would be undermined if the Court were to adopt Becerra’s contorted interpretation of the statute. Becerra’s position is essentially that it should be up to the voters to determine if he is a qualified candidate. However, requiring voters to understand and interpret esoteric distinctions between active and inactive State Bar membership is patently unfair and, indeed, is a primary reason why the minimum eligibility requirements were established m the first place—so that voters would be presented with candidates that could actually perform the job of Attorney General.”
Early is represented by former Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris, Long Beach attorney Brentford Ferreira, and himself.
Becerra’s opponent in the Nov. 6 general election is retired El Dorado Superior Court Judge Steven Bailey. Early came in fourth in the June 5 primary in a four-way race for the post of attorney general.
Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Becerra to fill the vacancy in the office when Kamala Harris resigned last year to take a seat in the U.S. Senate to which she was elected in 2016.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company