Today will bring the second court hearing in Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz’s lawsuit to try to convince a judge that she is qualified to run for state attorney general — and the day began with the disclosure that her office’s 36,000-name constituent database contains notations about many people’s personal characteristics and political connections.
The Courant’s story about the political character of her database can be read by clicking here.
Bysiewicz denied Tuesday that political advancement is the motive behind what are labeled as “special notes” in the database. the political-sounding notes are attached
The notations include references to certain Democratic politicians being “influenced” by other named political figures. There are even five mentions of local Democratic Party officials or lawyers who are said to be aligned with George Jepsen, the former state Senate majority leader from Stamford who is one of Bysiewicz’s rivals for this year’s Democratic nomination for attorney general.
Two of them are listed in the “special notes” as “Friend of Jepsen.” Another “likes Jepsen.” Another “loves George Jepsen.” And still another “went to Harvard Law with Jepsen.”
The two “Friend[s] of Jepsen” were listed as: John A. Davis of Glastonbury, described in the “special note” as a “moderate” also tied to U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-1st District; and lawyer and local Democratic activist Mark Favrow of Lebanon.
The notes say that lawyer Barbara Pearce of Guilford went to Harvard Law School with Jepsen, that former New Canaan councilwoman Ruth Smithers “loves George Jepsen,” and that lawyer and local Democratic party official Carl Anderson of Voluntown “likes Jepsen.”
Today’s court hearing, scheduled for 2 p.m. in Superior Court on Washington Street in Hartford, is listed as another prelimiinary “status conference” to deal with scheduling matters, as the first hearing did last Friday. Only lawyers have appeared in coourt so far, not parties to the case such as Bysiewicz herself.
No date has been mentioned for the first evidentiary hearing in the case. At such a hearing, Judge Michael Sheldon would be presented with evidence and testimony as to whether Bysiewicz qualifies to run for attorney general under a state statute establishing standards for eligibility. The statute requires the holder of that office to have accumulated 10 years’ experience in the “active practice” of law in Connecticut.
In the lawsuit — filed against the state Democratic Party and its chairwoman, as well as against the Secretary of the State’s office — Bysiewicz wants Sheldon to either declare her eligible under that statute, or to declare that statute unconstitutional. She is being given “expedited consideration” in the court case because she wants the question resolved before the Democrats’ nominating convention May 21 and 22.
Bysiewicz faces the prospect of being cross-examined at some future evidentiary hearing by the state Republican Party’s lawyer, Eliot Gersten, about how she has spent her days during her 11 years as secretary of the state.
The potential problems for her not just in the courtroom, but also in the political arena. An early poll shosed her as the front-runner for the attorney general’s nomination. But her prospects could be affected by the continuing controversy that has followed her candidacy since she abandoned her run for governor in January and set her sights on the attorney general’s office. The incumbent attorney general, Democrat Richard Blumenthal, is running for the U.S. Senate.