Public Defense

Is Bysiewicz eyeing the Gov?s race again?

By Gideon

The “does the AG have to be a lawyer” circus won’t end. SOTS Bysiewicz has followed through on her promise to seek a formal opinion from the current AG (and next Senator from CT) Blumenthal.

I don’t understand this. No one has challenged her qualifications – legally – yet. One candidate, George Jepsen, has said he isn’t going to ever.

The request for an opinion brings forth some very interesting facts regarding the AG statute:

Bysiewicz wants to know if that section adopted in 1897 is ?constitutional,? since it wasn?t until 1970 that the constitution was amended to make the attorney general one of the state?s constitutional officers.

?The Constitution contains no requirement for the office of the Attorney General,? Bysiewicz writes.

Then in 1980 the constitution was amended again to say ?Every elector who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be eligible to any office in the state.?

In light of the constitutional provisions Bysiewicz wondered if the statute that talks about active practice is still in effect ?or is it superseded by the subsequent constitutional amendments??

And when push comes to shove Bysiewicz wants to know who will make the determination of whether the requirement of 10 years of active practice has been satisfied.

So why do this now? Why create a problem when there isn’t one?

I think there’s only one answer. She wants to know now, so she can get out quickly if she has to. And so she can then jump back into the race for Governor.

What do you think?

Full post as published by A Public Defender on January 21, 2010 (boomark / email).