Arizona lawyer who wants to vote in State Bar elections takes his case to the Supreme Court
An Arizona lawyer who also is a member of the California bar and wants to vote
in its board of governors elections is trying to take his case to the state's
highest court. Scottsdale attorney Louis J. Hoffman argues in a petition for
review filed with the Supreme Court Dec. 31 that the statutes and rules that
define who can vote in bar elections are unconstitutional because they violate
his free speech and equal protection rights.
The issues, he says, "involve the disenfranchisement and disqualification of
approximately 10,000 California attorneys" who cannot vote or run for office
in the State Bar because they do not maintain their principal law offices in
California.
Hoffman is represented by Boalt Hall professor Stephen R. Barnett, who has
lost the case in federal court and in both superior and appellate courts in
California. Barnett has sued or threatened to sue the bar several times in the
last few years.
Hoffman argues that the State Bar rules in question have created two classes
of lawyer: one having "full rights of participation in the self-governance of
their profession" and the other deprived of rights to vote or hold office "in
the body that makes and enforces the rules that govern them and their practice."
Despite the court of appeal finding that the bar is an administrative adjunct
of the Supreme Court, Hoffman argues that it is a governmental agency and as
such, is subject to the fundamental right to vote that is protected by the California
Constitution's equal protection clause.
The State Bar disagrees. There is no reason for the high court to hear Hoffman's
appeal, the bar says in answer to the petition, pointing out that the trial
and appellate courts rejected those arguments "based on long-settled equal protection
principles and relying on clear, unambiguous and uncontroversial authority."
As it has throughout the litigation, the bar noted that the rule Hoffman claims
is unconstitutional has stood for 70 years without challenge. His argument that
the California Constitution gives him the "unprecedented 'right to vote' not
in one but in two different states' bar elections" is without merit, the bar
responded.
The bar also says that Hoffman's issue is political rather than constitutional
and that he is in the wrong forum.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide within 60 days whether to hear Hoffman's
appeal.
|