Become a Fan

twitter / LegalPadblog


« ACLU Secures Release of Two Disabled Immigrants | Main | Incumbent S.F. Judge Secures Key Endorsements »

April 02, 2010


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:

The comments to this entry are closed.

  • lawjobs
    Search For Jobs

    Job Type


    Keyword (optional)

August 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31