Eastman Says He's an Assistant AG, So He Must Be.

[Cheryl Miller]

You might know him as the former dean of Chapman University School of Law. But John Eastman would prefer that voters know him as an assistant attorney general.

That’s the ballot designation that Chapman filed with the Secretary of State’s office, according to the FlashReport blog. 

It’s not that Eastman has gone to work for Jerry Brown. But the constitutional scholar says he has signed a contract in February to work on a U.S. Supreme Court case for South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley. And that, according to an explanation Eastman provided to FlashReport, makes him an assistant attorney general.

An Eastman rep hasn’t returned a phone message yet. But his campaign did Tweet the FlashReport item, so they’re not exactly denying the story.

A Jackley aide said she had never heard of Eastman but would check on his status with the office.

Candidates always try to associate themselves with popular professions to earn the votes of folks who might know little or nothing about an election before entering the polls. “Car salesperson” and “banker” probably wouldn’t sell well nowadays. “Nurse” or “firefighter” sound a lot better.

California law (.pdf) gives candidates a certain amount of leeway in describing their jobs. The Secretary of State is also authorized to reject designations that “mislead voters.” And, of course, Eastman’s opponents could get the courts involved — if they can’t come up with more flattering descriptions for themselves.

Comments

[Noah]

Is campaigning for the AG's office governed by Rule 1-400? it seems like campaigning for that office is a "message or offer made by or on behalf of a member concerning the availability for professional employment" as the State's attorney general.

If so (and even if not), did Eastman violate Rule 1-400(D)(1) and (2) by being untrue? Answer probably depends on what Jackley's office says.

But, even if he's got some acting AAG role, did he violate 1-400(D)(3) by omitting facts "necessary to make the statements made . . . not misleading" (i.e., by failing to identify the limited nature of his role)?

Even if Rule 1-400 doesn't apply, if Eastman's claim is misleading, isn't it unethical (and perhaps discipline-worthy) conduct in any event?

[Noah]

Okay, now that I've read the appointment, I would say that his representation is not outright false. But the 1-400(D)(3) question stands. Any takers?

[Tim Kowal]

I took up the question here: http://notesfrombabel.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/analysis-of-the-spat-over-california-ag-candidate-eastmans-job-title-designation/