Cheating Bysiewicz, court cheated us all in Connecticut

Connecticut Republicans are thrilled with the success of their lawsuit knocking Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz off the ballot as a candidate for attorney general. The lawsuit pushed into premature political retirement a popular Democrat who almost certainly would have won the election and used the attorney generalship as a springboard to higher office, U.S. senator or governor.

While the lawsuit cost the Republican State Central Committee $140,000, Republicans will consider that a bargain for getting rid of Bysiewicz.

But the lawsuit exacted a much higher price from Connecticut as a whole, and while that cost was ultimately the doing of the state Supreme Court, it is no less terrible — the destruction of both the state Constitution and democracy.

The Republicans challenged Bysiewicz’s qualifications under a state law that requires attorneys general to have 10 years of experience practicing law. While she is a lawyer and former state representative, to get to 10 years Bysiewicz needed to count some of her nearly 12 years as secretary of the state. That wasn’t much of a stretch, since the secretary’s work involves interpretation of election law for state and municipal officials and the public. Indeed, a Superior Court judge approved counting Bysiewicz’s experience that way and ruled in favor of her qualification.

But upon the Republicans’ appeal, in May the state Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court judge without explanation and declared Bysiewicz ineligible for attorney general. More than five months later, the Supreme Court still has failed to publish its opinion in the case.

Not that the court can say anything sensible. For Connecticut’s Constitution couldn’t be clearer in favor of Bysiewicz’s qualification for attorney general. The Constitution says: “Every elector who has attained the age of 21 years shall be eligible to any office in the state.�

That is, the statute purporting to impose an experience qualification on the attorney general is unconstitutional. Bysiewicz pointed this out throughout her defense against the Republican lawsuit, but the Supreme Court disregarded it.

All this raises a question: If, to establish the most democratic government possible, the people of Connecticut wanted to ensure that any elector 21 or older could hold any office, exactly how would they phrase it in their Constitution any differently from the way they already have? Maybe: “Every elector who has attained the age of 21 years shall be eligible to any office in the state — and we really mean it this time.�

This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has grossly rejected the Constitution’s plain meaning to protect the privileges of the judicial-lawyer clique. For while the Constitution also commands that “all courts shall be open� and allows no exceptions, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that certain court sessions and records can be closed to the public. If the people of Connecticut wanted their Constitution to be even clearer on this point, how could they phrase it any differently? Maybe: “All courts shall be open, you SOBs.�

The Supreme Court always gets away with stuff like this and ends up running half the government by airy decree because Connecticut has yet to have a governor and Legislature with the gumption to stand up for themselves, the people and the Constitution. The court openness issue has been simmering for years, but the governor and Legislature have left it to the courts rather than risk a confrontation over the Constitution — to which the governor and legislators take an oath just as much as judges do. Since they appoint the judges, the governor and Legislature would win such a confrontation. But they are easily intimidated by black robes.

Even in her own party, Bysiewicz was resented for her political opportunism, and her downfall was partly of her own making. Though she was by far the leading prospect for the Democratic nomination for governor this year, she shifted her candidacy to attorney general because it promised only more popularity from striking poses against straw men rather than the devastating and popularity-killing choices facing the next governor.

But Bysiewicz is capable and experienced and for all practical purposes was fully qualified to be attorney general and didn’t deserve the cheating she got from the Supreme Court, which also cheated every Connecticut citizen out of his constitutional right to hold office without restriction.

The next governor and Legislature can start to solve this problem by repealing the unconstitutional statute and requiring judicial nominees and renominees to offer language that would ensure that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means.

Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer.