::::::::
The Supreme Court of the State did what was unthinkable in thenominations challenge in the District attorney's race. It denied that
mandamus that was petition to restore the name "Eliot P. Gould" to the
ballots of the June 3, 2008 Democratic primary. The ruling sanctioned the
District Court's finding that while I was "learned in the law", I was
disqualified for not being licensed.
As I had presented in the District Court, I presented to the Justices.
The qualification is toward an elective office. The state constitution is
apt for a variety of reasons to provide the qualification to
include "learned in the law" with age requirements, residency
requirements, and natural signatures of the people. Such is part of the
progress of democracy and the unfolding freedoms which we as a nation can
share. the license question is not relevant as the office is direct to the
people for a term. In this case, 2009-2012.
I tried to preserve the straight-forward reading of the constitution
with regard to being "learned in the law". I provided that any other
reading provided an imbalance in a superior law of elections and
constitutional right to vote. I offered that extended the right to vote
was also an assurred right to seek public office.
Well they mopped the floor with me. Denied, I could only wonder what
part of elections to be equal in each phase of the ballot process was
misunderstood? ON is equal. Off is not.
All the other is legal argument passing the reality with legal fiction.
In the meantime it is as if the Great experiment of Democracy has
transformed into a generation of selected few and excluded others.
denied, I again applied to the justices--for reconsideration-- but I
hold little optimism.
