John Eastman: A Loss Becomes a Victory, Con Law a Conservative Calling Card

[Cynthia Foster]

You all may have read Cheryl Miller's coverage of the court battles over attorney general candidate ballot designations. (If not, you're missing out. Click here, here, here, here and here [free reg. req.].) 

The hilarity, as one might expect, just does not stop. In a statement issued by John Eastman's spokesperson to the LAT blog PolitiCal, the Eastman camp miraculously manages to spin the court-ordered use of their third choice ballot designation as a victory. (Eastman had previously lobbied to be designated as "assistant attorney general." When Judge Allen Sumner said no, he shot for "special assistant attorney-general" and then "taxpayer advocate/attorney.")

"After a flurry of legal skirmishes, I'm happy to let you know that John Eastman's ballot designation will be "Constitutional Law Attorney." This is an extremely strong ballot designation and will clearly set John apart from the other candidates in the race. John is the clear conservative candidate in this contest, a fact emphasized by our approved ballot designation."

That also reads a bit like he's saying Constitutional Law Attorney screams conservative (Erwin Chemerinsky, anyone?) but, you know, whatever.

Comments

[David Cameron Carr]

These battles over misleading ballot designations by lawyers suggest a completely different meaning to the term "con" law.

[Tim Kowal]

This post is not quite accurate. "Constitutional Law Attorney" was actually not one of Eastman's alternatives. Eastman's choice and two alternatives were "Assistant Attorney General," "Special Assistant Attorney-General," and "Taxpayer Advocate/Attorney." Steve Cooley objected to all three: he said Eastman could not say he was "Assistant Attorney General" without qualifying it by saying he was the AAG of "South Dakota." (Requiring geographical qualifiers in candidates' job descriptions is unprecedented and is not the law.) But then Cooley also objected to "Special Assistant Attorney-General" because it violated the three-word limit of Elections Code section 13107(a)(3). Thus, Cooley obviously did not expect Eastman to insert any "South Dakota" qualifier into his "Assistant Attorney General" designation, as this (already accurate job description) maxed out the word limit. Cooley was just playing games here.

Who knows what hair-brained reason Cooley objected to "Taxpayer Advocate/Attorney."

More on this here: http://notesfrombabel.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/cooley-misleadingly-accusing-eastman-of-being-misleading/