20061027 Is Gansler Qualified?

Is Gansler Qualified?

October 27, 2006

I’m no sure what to make of the flap that recently came to the surface as to whether or not the Democratic candidate for the Office of Attorney General, Doug Gansler is eligible for the office for which he seeks.

I am aware of one thing, if Mr. Gansler and the Democratic candidate for Maryland Comptroller, Peter Franchot both win, buy stock in any company that makes microphones, grandstands and air conditioners, because there will no end to the hot air grandstanding of these two folks.

Talk about self-love, these two fell madly in love with themselves at birth and it is a passion to which they have always remained faithful. It will be unbearable.

For more information along these lines, please read Barry Rascovar’s column from November 18th, 2005: “‘Democrat,’ according to Peter Franchot,” and my post: “20061016 The Examiner Editorial Franchot’s empty gesture.”

Mr. Rascovar’s column begins, “The way Peter V.R. Franchot sees it, Annapolis consists of good Democrats, who fight for truth, justice and the American way, and everybody else. These other politicians belong to Franchot’s Evil Empire and represent the forces of greed, injustice and cruelty.”

And then it gets better and better and better. Please read it to get an idea as to how quickly we will miss William Donald Schaefer’s responsible approach to government and public service. Yeah, I know darn well what I just wrote…

And wait until you read, “20061016 The Examiner Editorial Franchot’s empty gesture.”

But to go from the frying pan to the fire - - getting back to Mr. Gansler; as I was researching the issue, I came across Attila’s Pillage Idiot October 25th, 2006 post: “Doug Gansler at the bar.”

The top of his post begins:

“I've had my share of fun with Doug Gansler, the Montgomery County State's Attorney, now running for Attorney General of Maryland. But who knows what to make of this latest allegation that he is ineligible to serve as Attorney General, because he hasn't practiced law in Maryland for the requisite 10 years?...”

He then suggests, “Stephanie Dray, our newest member of the Maryland Blogger Alliance, brings you the basic details of the controversy…”

And - - he ends his post with, “For more background, see the MoCoPolitics blog, which sees a real problem for Gansler, even though the writer supports him.”

Be sure to read the entire Pillage Idiot post: “Doug Gansler at the bar” and review Stephanie Dray’s basic details for some grounding on the issues involved.

When ya go to Jousting for Justice’s post on Gansler matter, be sure to take time to read the comments. (Ms. Dray has a great blog!)

After I read Attila’s and Ms. Drays’ post, I stopped researching it as they covered it well.

If you have the delirium tremors for more info read the Washington Post’s October 25^th, 2006 article, “At Debate, Rolle Questions Gansler's Eligibility for Office,” by Steve Vogel. He concludes with what many see is the bottom line:

“…Dan Friedman, a state constitution expert at the University of Maryland School of Law, said in an interview last month that Gansler's credentials should meet the standard. "Bar membership should be a sufficient indicator that a candidate has practiced law in the state," Friedman said. "Therefore, Gansler would be constitutionally eligible."”

Bruce Godfrey over at Crablaw, seems to agree. I’d say that between Stephanie Dray and Bruce Godfrey, they have it nailed.

Perhaps in the future, such issues ought to be adjudicated by a special panel of the Maryland Blogger Alliance and we’d get things back on track and save the taxpayer a great deal of money to boot.

To add some seasoning to the saga, read Phyllis Jordan’s October 26, 2006 post in Maryland Moment, “Gansler Gets Perez Treatment.”

And finally, a colleague who is a legal and constitutional expert, briefed me on this issue with this information from October 25^th, 2006:

Is Gansler Qualified?

Democrat Attorney General candidate Doug Gansler faced tough questions in a court hearing today challenging whether he has the required 10 years experience in the practice of law in Maryland as required by the Maryland Constitution.

Last month, the Court of Appeals ruled that another Democrat candidate, Tom Perez, did not meet the constitutional standard and his candidacy was disqualified.

The hearing was scheduled for the morning, but Gansler did not post - so Judge Silkworth would not conduct the hearing unless Gansler was present.

The court reconvened at 1:30 but appeared unimpressed with Gansler who was not specific about his “practice” in Maryland in the years prior to his serving as state’s attorney and did not cite any Maryland cases or clients prior to the eight years that he served as State’s Attorney in Montgomery County.

The issue could end up before the Governor because the Maryland Constitution (Art. V, § 2) gives the Governor the duty to decide on the election and qualifications of the candidate who wins the Attorney General’s race.

(In fact, there is an 1875 case - 43 Md. 572 – in which the losing candidate contested the AG race before the Governor due to widespread voter fraud, intimidation and violence in the City of Baltimore.)

The Judge is expected to rule in the next few days. ####

At this point, in regards to this year’s Maryland General Assembly and elections; I think that we are all trapped in a Lewis Carroll novel, being read by Hunter S. Thompson and danced to by Timothy Leary.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org www.thetentacle.com Westminster Eagle Opinion and Winchester Report www.thewestminstereagle.com www.kevindayhoff.com has moved to http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/