This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
News

California Supreme Court,
Government

Aug. 14, 2018

Becerra remains attorney general after eligibility challenge fails

The state Supreme Court has declined to hear a complaint challenging Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s eligibility to hold the job.


Attachments


The state Supreme Court has declined to hear a complaint challenging Attorney General Xavier Becerra's eligibility to hold the job.

Eric P. Early was a candidate in the June primary. In May, he filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court claiming the fact that Becerra went on inactive status with the State Bar for 26 years while serving in Congress made him unable to hold the office.

Under California's Government Code, an attorney general must be "admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment."

But the court dismissed Early's complaint without comment late on Friday afternoon. Early v. Becerra, S250475 (Cal. Sup. Ct., filed Aug. 8, 2018).

"The Supreme Court's denial of this purely political lawsuit finally puts this tired Republican tactic in the ground, where it belongs," said Dana Williamson, Becerra's campaign manager.

Becerra was represented by Kaufman Legal Group in Los Angeles. In a brief, his attorneys argued the Legislature "did not draw a distinction" between active and inactive status when it passed the eligibility statute.

Early, the managing partner of Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP in Los Angeles, had lost previous rounds at the district and appellate level. He said he was unhappy with how the courts handled his case.

"The Court of Appeal took eight days to deny our writ, and then the California Supreme Court requested immediate briefing on this important case," Early said. "Writs are never easy to get, much less when the Supreme Court is involved."

His attorneys filed a 30-page petition with the high court last Wednesday. They argued a key case cited by the 3rd District Court of Appeal, Chambers v. Terry (1940) 40 Cal. App. 2d 153, was irrelevant.

They also cited examples where courts and even the attorney general's office have taken seemingly opposite positions on similar statutes relating to bar status and eligibility to be a judge.

#348769

Malcolm Maclachlan

Daily Journal Staff Writer
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com