{"id":266583,"date":"2010-02-02T12:35:10","date_gmt":"2010-02-02T17:35:10","guid":{"rendered":"tag:blogs.courant.com,2010:\/capitol_watch\/\/9.70928"},"modified":"2010-02-02T22:32:41","modified_gmt":"2010-02-03T03:32:41","slug":"blumenthal-law-threatening-bysiewiczs-ag-hopes-is-valid-bysiewicz-says-shes-very-encouraged-and-still-running","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/266583","title":{"rendered":"Blumenthal: Law Threatening Bysiewicz’s AG Hopes Is Valid; Bysiewicz Says She’s ‘Very Encouraged’ And Still Running"},"content":{"rendered":"

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday that the state law requiring 10 years’ “active practice” as a lawyer before running for attorney general is constitutional, and that it takes more than merely being licensed as a lawyer to be considered as actively practicing law.<\/p>\n

The opinion, which can be read via this link<\/a>, could have a significant impact — politically, if not legally — on the person who requested it: Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who declared her candidacy three weeks ago to replace her fellow Democrat, Blumenthal, in the November election. He is not seeking re-election as he runs for the U.S. Senate.<\/p>\n

Blumenthal said the meaning of “active practice” is unclear, and unless the legislature passes a bill clarifying it, a court would have to decide if a candidate meets it “on a case-by-case basis” by evaluating his or her credentials.<\/p>\n

Bysiewicz, however, said she would not seek such a “declaratory ruling.” Instead, she said that she is “very encouraged” by the opinion and will continue running. “It validates what I had been saying all along: that I am eligible to run for and serve as attorney general,” she said. She added that her qualifications are a political issue, not a legal one, which voters can evaluate.<\/p>\n

Almost as soon as Bysiewicz entered the race, questions arose as to whether she meets the requirement in a state statute that Connecticut’s attorney general must have “at least 10 years’ active practice at the bar of this state.” A few critics have said that Bysiewicz does not meet that “active practice” requirement, even though she has been registered as an attorney here for 23 years.<\/p>\n

Before Bysiewicz became secretary of the state in 1999, she had worked for eight years for two law firms and a corporation’s legal department – six of those years in Connecticut. Bysiewicz and her supporters say that all 11 of her years in office should count as “active practice” because although she doesn’t need to be a lawyer in the job, she and her staff dispense legal advice on laws affecting elections and corporations.<\/p>\n

The exact definition of “active practice” is not clear in the law, and Blumenthal said in Tuesday’s opinion that this would have to be determined by a judge in a declaratory judgment “on a case-by-case basis.”  This would involve hearings, evidence and testimony about the credentials of an individual candidate.<\/p>\n

Bysiewicz said she has no plans to embark on such a court proceeding, although she didn’t rule out the fact that some other candidate might go to court to raise the issue.<\/p>\n

Blumenthal said although there is a “cloud of uncertainty” over the definition of “active practice,” the words had to be put there for a reason. “Had the General Assembly intended only that the Attorney General be a member of the Connecticut bar for ten years, regardless of whether he actually practiced law, it could have said so without using the words ‘active practice.'” he wrote. <\/p>\n

He said that in other states, “the phrase ‘active practice’ has been defined to require more than merely being a member of the bar.”<\/p>\n

In Alaska, for example, applicants to become judges must be in the “active practice of law” for the previous eight years. Alaska’s definitions of that phrase include “being actually engaged in advising and representing clients in matters of law” and “rendering legal services to an agency, branch, or department of a civil government within the United States, or a state or territory…, in an elective, appointive or employed capacity.”<\/p>\n

In Texas, Blumenthal said, “it means an attorney who ‘has engaged in the practice of law, which includes, but is not limited to, private practice, house counsel, public employment, or academic employment.'”<\/p>\n

Bysiewicz focused on the parts of those definitions that mention lawyers who serve in the government, including in an elected capacity — and she said they vindicate her argument that being Secretary of the State meets the “active practice” requirement here.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

State Republican Chairman Chris Healy said Bysiewicz is wrong to pursue her candidacy.<\/p>\n

“This is the height of arrogance and hubris, asking for guidance from the Attorney General, not getting the answer you want but acting as though you did,” Healy said. “With no one from her Party to stand by her side and defend her, Susan Bysiewicz has opted to go it alone.”<\/p>\n

She should seek a court ruling and pay the legal bills herself, he said.”Nothing seems to stand in the way of Susan Bysiewicz’s ambition – even if it means ignoring the law she is sworn to uphold,” Healy said. “She must pony up for her own legal work and stop billing the taxpayers.”<\/p>\n

<\/span>Bysiewicz asked two weeks ago for the opinion in her official capacity as Secretary of the State, acknowledging that the question was personally relevant to her. <\/p>\n

One of the fundamental questions she asked was whether the 10-year “active practice” statute is constitutional; her supporters say the century-old status predated the state constitution by many decades, and the constitution just says you need to be an 18-year-old voter.  Others, however, say the legislature has the right to elaborate on the constitution as long any statute that is passed does not contradict it — which was essentially Blumenthal’s position Tuesday.<\/p>\n

In the time since Bysiewicz requested the opinion, politicians and commentators have speculated that no matter what Blumenthal says, the issue may end up in court.  That’s because his opinion is only advisory, not binding.<\/p>\n

Both Republicans and Democrats — including Bysiewicz’s intra-party rival for the attorney general’s nomination, former state Senate majority leader George Jepsen — have said the issue can only be resolved in state Superior Court after a request for either a declaratory judgment or injunction.<\/p>\n

Blumenthal agreed, saying: “Determining the specific actions that could constitute active practice, and whetheer any particular candidate has satisfied them in a particular case, requires a highly fact-specific inquiry that is beyond the scope of this decision and would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis by a court.”<\/p>\n

Another possible way of resolving the situation would be for the legislature to address the uncertainty by rewriting the statute to define “active practice,” he said.<\/p>\n

Jepsen said Tuesday that the opinion means “hard choices” for Bysiewicz because, in his view, she raised legal doubts publicly that she should now resolve.  He has said in the past that the Democratic Party cannot afford to have a candidate whose qualifications could be challenged in court. <\/p>\n

Bysiewicz’s other rival for the Democratic nomination, state Rep. Cameron Staples of New Haven, had a similar view. “I think the voters need to know if she meets the qualifications,” Staples told Courant Capitol Bureau Chief Christopher P. Keating. “This issue will have to be clarified for everyone’s benefit.”<\/p>\n

In the two weeks since Bysiewicz asked for the opinion, other issues have arisen to feed the controversy.<\/p>\n

As reported previously in The Courant, Bysiewicz last week submitted a personal check for $55 to the state’s judicial department to rectify an error she says she made in 2006 – when she obtained a 50-percent exemption from a $110-a-year professional fee by filing a form saying that she didn’t practice law as an occupation.<\/p>\n

But that still left her with additional issues to explain:<\/p>\n

–Newly surfaced judicial department records show that she didn’t just file for the exemption in 2006, but also did it in 2007 and 2008 by signing identical statements that she didn’t practice law “as an occupation” in those years, either. However, she wrote a letter to the judicial department Monday – which was released to The Courant Tuesday – in which she asked that all three filings be disregarded.<\/p>\n

–Meanwhile, criticism has mounted over the fact that Bysiewicz uses taxpayer money to have her office pay the annual $110 professional fees not only for her, but for seven or eight staff lawyers in the executive-branch agency. Her office policy contrasts from that of the current attorney general, Blumenthal, who requires that the 200 or so lawyers who work for him pay their own fees, out of their own pockets.<\/p>\n

Bysiewicz had been unwilling to talk to the Courant about the issue of her fees for more than a week, since the issue arose. She had her campaign spokeswoman, Tanya Meck respond, and she simply called it a mistake that Bysiewicz has rectified.<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, the first time Bysiewicz talked about the issue for herself, she would not answer questions such as how she could have filled out the forms incorrectly three times, how much attention she gives to such details, or whether she leaves the task to others. “I don’t have anything to add” on the subject, she said. “I made a mistake, and as soon as it came to my attention I took steps to correct it.”<\/p>\n

Healy, the Republican chairman, criticized Bysiewicz on that issue.<\/p>\n

He said: “Over the last few weeks, Bysiewicz has given conflicting and erroneous accounts of her legal career, claiming that her tenure as a Constitutional officer should count for her performance of legal work. However, it was disclosed that she did file three successful forms claiming she was not engaged in ‘active legal work,’ and in one year, took a partial exemption from paying the occupational tax.”
 
“You can’t say on a sworn statement that you aren’t a practicing attorney, only to later say it was a mistake because you need the time to qualify for an important elected position,” said Healy. “The law is clear, but Susan Bysiewicz’s thinking is not. She should pack it in and look for a real job in the private sector and come back once she is qualified.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday that the state law requiring 10 years’ “active practice” as a lawyer before running for attorney general is constitutional, and that it takes more than merely being licensed as a lawyer to be considered as actively practicing law. The opinion, which can be read via this link, could […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4002,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-266583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4002"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}