If Gansler's credentials are that questionable, then why was this not researched and brought to the forefront several months ago?

This smells of a GOP plan to essentially allow Rolle to waltz in without opposition. However, I think that if Gansler were disqualified, then Democrats should and would be allowed to nominate a substitute (Stu Simms, maybe?)

I remember there were a number of questions about Gansler's eligibility at the time the same issues were being raised about Perez. But noone challenged Gansler officially until now.

The trial judge's comment about it being chaotic to rule just two weeks before the election rings a bit hollow given that the court of appeals threw Perez off the ballot with just about two weeks before the primary election. Still, as a practical matter the judges on the state's highest court will feel at liberty to do many things that a single trial judge will not (although this *is* the judge who threw out the early-voting law), so I look for Gansler to prevail in the trial court. But if an appeal is taken to the court of appeals, then the case likely would not be decided until after election day, and if Gansler wins the election and then is deemed ineligible, the state constitution provides for the governor to appoint someone to serve the remainder of the term (in this case, the full four years). Stu Simms would seem to be an obvious choice (assuming O'Malley wins, otherwise maybe Scott Rolle?), but either O'Malley or Ehrlich might have his own preferred candidate. (And note that Ehrlich would have to win reelection to be able to choose someone, because even if Gansler loses the case the AG post would not be vacant until Joe Curran leaves office.)

By the way, back when the court of appeals threw Perez off the ballot there were a couple of comments here wondering about Gansler's vulnerability to a similar challege. In response, someone who called him/herself "Gansler Wins" proclaimed that Gansler was not vulnerable and assured the rest of us that we could trust what he/she said because:

"I've been a close friend of Doug's for over 20 years, and am a fellow lawyer; I happen to have personal knowledge of his work on Maryland cases during his years in private practice. The people who suggest that he doesn't satisfy the Maryland constitution's qualification simply don't know the basic facts."

When someone pressed Gansler Wins to share "the basic facts," noting that Gansler's own Web site seemed to support the notion that was ineligible, Gansler Wins sanctimoniously responded:

"Glad you can read and excerpt from Doug's website. No substitute for knowing the underlying facts, though. You're just wrong."

When urged to explain his/her position, rather than just make bald statements without any support whatsoever, Gansler Wins responded:

"I frankly don't care to lay it out in this forum, but if Huh? or some other Perez surrogate really plans to challenge Doug, then the facts will come out."

Well, as we know someone has challenged Gansler, and according to today's Post, *Gansler himself* testified under oath at the hearing yesterday that indeed his Maryland experience essentially consists only of his time (less than 8 years) as AG:

"Gansler conceded that apart from his nearly eight years as a Montgomery prosecutor, his experience with what he called 'substantial Maryland law' was limited. 'For your purposes, [he testified], I would say none.'" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501897.html

Perhaps Gansler Wins will return here to explain the "basic facts" or the "underlying facts" about Gansler that apparently even Gansler himself does not know? Or will he/she simply cower in hiding, having been revealed as the true fraud (i.e., complete liar) that we knew he/she was all along?

P.S. All of the above quotes from Gansler Wins can be found at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2006/08/perez_off_the_ballot_early_vot.html

Well, if he's not qualified under the law, his name has be removed from the ballot and a substitute named.

I argued Mr. Perez's case in the Court of Appeals, and lost, but even then, we brought up the fact that if Mr. Perez was ineligibile, then Mr. Gansler would also be ineligible unless bar membership by itself constitues "practicing law" in Maryland -- an absurd proposition, in light of the hundreds of members of the Maryland Bar in good standing who either live in other states practicing no Maryland law, or are now businesnessmen or doctors or in other professions, or are housewives or are retired. Surely the Court of Appeals cannot find that bar membership itself is enough? I predict that the Court of Appeals will hold that to have practiced law in Maryland under the Constitutional provisions at issue, an attorney must be a member of the Maryland Bar for 10 years AND have maintained an active law practice in Maryland, not in DC or elsewhere, for 10 years. In which case, Gansler has a problem.

The headline should read:

STEELE WINS DEBATE WHILE CARDIN FUMBLES TO EXPLAIN WHAT PLANET HE'S ON.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501865.html

Well this was reported on a liberal blog back when this happened to Perez that Democrats should be careful if they elect Gansler for this exact reason, looks like they listened. This lawsuit has nothing to do with Rolle, as the Maryland Board of Elections has to think it is credible to take the lawsuit

More GOP dirty tricks.

Let the voters decide who's qualified to hold a given office.

Mark Phillips is a moron. He was wrong about Perez. Now he's wrong about Gansler. Read the opinion in the AA Co. Cir. Court, and you'll see the underlying facts that I knew would come out. Why should anyone care what "The First Loser" thinks about anything on this topic? He didn't understand the legal standard in the Perez case and he's just as wrong in his analysis of the Gansler case. This has always been a very simple issue for any attorney with an ounce of sense. All the ill-informed blabbering on this site has been just silly.

Boy do I sense a lot of frustration from Gansler Wins, understandably so, since being shown to be a fraud can be disheartening. But let's again take a look at what he says, just to lay bare his utter disregard for truth. He says I was "wrong about Gansler." What I wrote (see above) was "I look for Gansler to prevail in the trial court." Hmmm, so how was I wrong?

I also pointed out that, as the Post reported, *Gansler himself* admitted under oath that for purposes of the constitutional requirement he has no Maryland practice experience other than his time as State's Attorney. Gansler Wins, as usual, has nothing of substance to say in response, just vitriolic attacks about "morons," "ill-informed blathering" (which, I note with amusement, he nevertheless seems feels compelled to participate in) and people without "an ounce of sense."

Gansler Wins also proclaims this to be "a very simple issue." Yet of course he doesn't explain why, by which I mean he doesn't explain why in his view Gansler is qualified under the constitution. Is it because bar membership is all that matters? Is it for some other reason? Gansler Wins declines to say, preferring to stick with personal attacks that are easy to make and require no actual thought. We're not so easily distracted here, sir, we can see quite clearly that, as you have throughout your time here, you continue to dodge the real issues.

Also, as to the matter being "simple," I note that 1) the very same circuit court to which Gansler Wins now points with glee ruled the other way in the Perez case, only to be reversed by the court of appeals; 2) the court of appeals apparently doesn't think the issue so "simple," since over two months after issuing its judgment it still has not found a way to explain itself; and 3) the circuit court took 24 pages yesterday to lay out its reasoning, hardly what one would expect of a "simple" issue.

Gansler Wins, it's long past time for you to put up or shut up. Knock off the posts that consist only of name calling and give us something of substance. Otherwise pick up your toys and go home. We've got some serious people here engaging in a worthwhile discussion of an important issue, and we don't need your childish interruptions.

Boy do I sense a lot of frustration from Gansler Wins, understandably so, since being shown to be a fraud can be disheartening. But let's again take a look at what he says, just to lay bare his utter disregard for truth. He says I was "wrong about Gansler." What I wrote (see above) was "I look for Gansler to prevail in the trial court." Hmmm, so how was I wrong?

I also pointed out that, as the Post reported, *Gansler himself* admitted under oath that for purposes of the constitutional requirement he has no Maryland practice experience other than his time as State's Attorney. Gansler Wins, as usual, has nothing of substance to say in response, just vitriolic attacks about "morons," "ill-informed blathering" (which, I note with amusement, he nevertheless seems feels compelled to participate in) and people without "an ounce of sense."

Gansler Wins also proclaims this to be "a very simple issue." Yet of course he doesn't explain why, by which I mean he doesn't explain why in his view Gansler is qualified under the constitution. Is it because bar membership is all that matters? Is it for some other reason? Gansler Wins declines to say, preferring to stick with personal attacks that are easy to make and require no actual thought. We're not so easily distracted here, sir, we can see quite clearly that, as you have throughout your time here, you continue to dodge the real issues.

Also, as to the matter being "simple," I note that 1) the very same circuit court to which Gansler Wins now points with glee ruled the other way in the Perez case, only to be reversed by the court of appeals; 2) the court of appeals apparently doesn't think the issue so "simple," since over two months after issuing its judgment it still has not found a way to explain itself; and 3) the circuit court took 24 pages yesterday to lay out its reasoning, hardly what one would expect of a "simple" issue.

Gansler Wins, it's long past time for you to put up or shut up. Knock off the posts that consist only of name calling and give us something of substance. Otherwise pick up your toys and go home. We've got some serious people here engaging in a worthwhile discussion of an important issue, and we don't need your childish interruptions.

For the record, I've read all the available cases, constitutional and statutory provisions, treatises, Attorney General Opinions, briefs, and other materials available on this issue. The exact constitutional standard is not clearly defined, but it is clear that -- at most -- the standard is met by (1) bar membership plus (2) holding yourself out as available to practice law in Maryland. One practices law in Maryland by holding oneself out, as the statutory definition and rules set forth unambiguously.

As it happens -- and as the opinion makes amply clear -- Gansler meets and far exceeds this standard. Gansler represented the Montgomery County (MARYLAND!) NAACP Criminal Justice Committee for over four years, pro bono, while he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C. Before that he served as an attorney on the MoCo Commission on Aging for 2 years (pro bono) and the MoCo Community Partnership for 3 years (pro bono), all in Maryland, of course and all while he was a member of the Maryland bar. The AA Circuit Court held: "Such 'practice of law,' in these selfless and varied ways, i.e., reviewing legislation, researching drug treatment alternatives, familiarizing one's self with elder law principles, and evaluating claims for possible referral to other counsel, all contribute to the purpose with which the framers were concerned in Art. V, Section 4."

"Selfless and varied" legal work in Maryland for many years before becoming MoCo State's Attorney.

The problem with you guys is that you've been hypothesizing without bothering to inform yourself of these facts, which were available on Gansler's website since May.

This is stuff I've known all along, and why I've been completely confident that Gansler met the test, and Perez did not. I had no obligation to lay it all out in public because I had no interest in briefing Gansler's case in public unless and until there was a (frivolous) challenge. As for First Loser's suggestion that one must have maintained a law office in Maryland, I defy him to find anything in the law that suggests such a restrictive standard.

As for an appeal, if there is one, I look forward to hearing Rolle's campaign manager arguing to Chief Judge Bell that "selfless" legal work for the NAACP is not "practicing law."

Mark Phillips and First Loser: Do your homework before you fly off with uninformed blather, as you've done on this site for months.

Stated differently: Understand the law. Gather the facts. Apply the law to the facts. Then opine. You guys skipped the first three step.

By the way . . .

My name is Gansler Wins.

And Gansler Won.

Gansler Wins -- as does the person he supports -- comes across as an arrogant arse. I read the AA Circuit Ct. opinion and was amazed that some of the MD legal work that Gansler claims as part of his constitutional qualifications consists of handing out legal advice to his basketball buddies on the court and doing his own mother's will (which the opinion itself suggests gives rise to a serious conflict of interest). I think Gansler may survive the Ct. of Appeals challenge (assuming there is one), and I likely will vote for him. But I think he -- and his cronies -- need to take a different tone if he wants any sustained support from the electorate.

MoCo voter: My tone was a product of having to respond (for quite some time now) to rants from other post-ers. Your point is well taken, though. Thanks for your vote for Doug.

I appreciate "Gansler Wins" finally bringing some substance to the table. And, in the end, "Gansler Wins" may prevail if the Gansler suit is appealed.

However, based on the questioning I received from the Court of Appeals in the Perez case, some of the judges clearly believe that the intent of the Framers in drafting a "practiced law in this State for ten years" provision was to make sure that the candidate was actively and substantially involved in "practicing law" in Maryland for ten years. Whether providing some advice to your mother about her will qualfies is questionable. As for Mr. Gansler's civic activities, those hardly qualify as practicing law because nearly all could have been -- and were -- performed by non-lawyers.

While you may be correct that an attorney does not need to maintain an office in the State to be "practicing law," such a requirement would provide an easy test for courts to rely upon. You claim that there is no mention of such a requirement in the Constitution, but there is also no mention of bar membership as a requirement, and without a Court of Appeals opinion, we still don't know if they are going to rule: a) that MD bar membership alone is sufficient to be practicing law in Maryland -- an absurd conclusion; b) that MD bar membership plus offering your legal services in Maryland is sufficient; c) MD bar membership plus engaging in substantial practice of law in Maryland; or d) substantial practice of law in Maryland for ten years.

What I would hate to see happen would be for Mr. Gansler to prevail in the election, and then have the Court of Appeals set forth a test requiring MD Bar membership plus substantial practice in the State, whether by maintaining an office or appearing as counsel of record in cases, etc.

It is not so simple as you ineloquently suggest, and the end result, as it stands now, is that Mr. Perez, an attorney who was handling major lawsuits in Maryland courts for more than ten years, was disqualified because he was not a MD bar member, even though he was practicing legally in MD under federal law, whereas Mr. Gansler, who was giving advice to his own mother about her will and serving on civic organizations, is qualified because he was a member of the Bar. That could hardly be what the Framers intended.

Here's hoping that the Court of Appeals will find a way to disqualify Gansler. I'm not a lawyer, but am a consumer of legal services. I've prevailed against government at the CoA, and on remand. I've read the Circuit Opinion, and the CoA briefs. I think/hope he is in trouble.

I think Gansler epitomizes a lot that is wrong with politics/society in America today. I suspect that some portion, hopefully a large portion, of the Maryland legal community is appalled by the prospect that Gansler may become the most recognizable face of Maryland Law to the outside world. If I were a lawyer I would be appalled.

As between candidates Rolle, Perez, Simms, and Gansler, I would hire any of the first three to represent me, long before I would even think about thinking about hiring Gansler. I'll be voting Rolle.

Well I'm out of luck Gansler survives. The Sun had it at 8.30pm it's now 1.30am and still nothing on WaPo.

Okay, first of all, Gansler Wins (who I've long suspected is Doug Gansler himself, by the way), it's a flat lie for you to claim that your perennially sneering, arrogant tone was simply "a product of having to respond (for quite some time now) to rants from other post-ers." I urge, *urge,* anyone who's interested in seeing the truth to go back and read Gansler Wins's own comments, at:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2006/08/perez_off_the_ballot_early_vot.html . He started in with his condescension long before anyone else's tone turned at all nasty or unpleasant. Now he's trying to rewrite history, but the facts are right there for everyone to see. So in addition to everything else, Gansler Wins appears to be a liar. Go ahead, Gansler Wins, refute this paragraph with specifics. I *dare* you. No, not with generalities or attacks on me, but with spe-ci-fics. You can't.

One other question for you, Gansler Wins: your 2:50 pm post refers to what "the statutory definition and rules set forth unambiguously." What statute(s) and rules are your referring to? Can we have the cites, please?

As to the substance of the matter, there is one and only one possible interpretation of the constitutional eligibility clause under which Gansler qualifies but Perez does not, and that is bar membership alone. But if the court of appeals gave that interpretation to the clause -- and Gansler Wins faults the rest of us for "hypothesizing" even though 1) he's doing it just as much as anyone else, and 2) the reason such "hypothesizing" is necessary is that the court of appeals still hasn't issued an opinion in the Perez case -- it would effectively be flunking Interpretation 101, because the immediately adjacent provision of the Maryland constitution says that to be eligible to be state's attorney you have to have been "admitted to practice law" for two years, a phrase that obviously means bar admission. So the court would have to say that the two different phrases mean the same thing, when any law student knows that giving the same meaning to different terms in any document, let alone adjacent provisions, is a no-no.

Any other definition -- including the one that Gansler Wins laid out -- can't be right because Perez would qualify. He had *vastly* more Maryland experience than Perez. Just compare the AA Circuit Court's opinion about Gansler's experience with Joe Curran's official opinion saying that Perez was qualified, which is at http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2006/91oag99.pdf.
It's really a laughable comparison.

That I'm right is made clear by the decision this week of the court of appeals to throw out the Gansler suit on laches grounds. The court realized that there's no way to distinguish Perez and Gansler on this point other than by saying that eligibility depends only on bar membership, and also realized that saying that can't be right for the reasons already given. So since they didn't want to throw Gansler off now they had to go with laches, even though it makes *no* sense to do that. What difference does laches make? (Laches, by the way, means that you lose because you just waited too long to bring suit.) If Gansler is constitutionally ineligible to be sworn in, then it doesn't matter when someone brought suit -- he's still ineligible, period. Even if laches were relevant, gimme a break: Gansler hasn't even been elected, let alone sworn in, and somehow it's too late to challenge his eligibility? The court really screwed this one up: either both Gansler and Perez were eligible or neither one was. End of story.