Even if She Moves is Ackerman Eligible to Represent the 72nd?


Allan Bartlett in younger days...

Allan Bartlett in younger days...

Our old Friend Allan Bartlett has posted a provocative piece over at the otherwise dreary Red County blog here. The thrust of it is that Linda Ackerman doesn’t appear to be qualified to serve in the State Legislature for the 72nd District. How come? Allan cites this problematic language in the State Constitution, in Article 4, Section 2(c), to wit:

(c) A person is ineligible to be a member of the Legislature
unless the person is an elector and has been a resident of the
legislative district for one year, and a citizen of the United States
and a resident of California for 3 years, immediately preceding the
election.

Well, Linda Ackerman has been living in a secret gated community in the 70th Assembly District for almost a decade. Hmm…

But Fullerton has never been out of my thoughts...

But Fullerton has never been out of my thoughts...

We’ll have to see what the election lawyers have to say about this.

More about

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

  1. #1 by just a guy on September 28, 2009

    Quick, everyone read Allan’s post before Red County editors delete it!

  2. #2 by idiots on September 28, 2009

    Amazing how these things are overlooked. This law has been around for 160 years. The original 1849 California Constitution said:

    “no person shall be a member of the Senate or Assembly, who has not been a citizen and inhabitant of the State one year, and of the country or district for which he shall be chosen six months next before his election.”

  3. #3 by Frankie Lee on September 28, 2009

    Let’s see the Hackermans hack their way out of this one.

  4. #4 by Tobby G. on September 28, 2009

    (c) A person is ineligible to be a member of the Legislature unless the person is an elector and has been a resident of the legislative district for one year, and a citizen of the United States and a resident of California for 3 years, immediately preceding the election.

    Looks like Mrs. Ackerman would break the law if she turns in papers to run for Duavls sticky seat in Sacramento.

  5. #5 by ScarletPimpernickel on September 28, 2009

    Does no one think that if Duvall had not uttered his now infamous words on a hot mike, that the Ackerman’s would be contemplating to run for the 72nd AD seat?

    Linda had over ten years to run for the position but gave nary a squeak about it. And now she is Joan of F-ing Arc ready to rescue the mighty, yet recently tarnished, 72nd from mediocrity!!!!! I’m calling these people what medical doctors diagnose you with when you come into the hospital with a specific malady only to get a secondary OPPORTUNISTIC INFECTION.

    Her credentials are laughable. It reminds of the joke telling but hapless idiot Larry Dick from the pension spiking water board. If you have not had the honor of meeting the hydro-cerebral Larry, then you have no idea the depths to which his well has run dry – a dry hole, if you will.

    I digress at what a mess. Ugh.

    BTW, Admin, when you gonna bring back the bumper pool girls?

  6. #6 by The Fullerton Harpoon on September 28, 2009

    Down boy! Those girls were banned.

  7. #7 by ScarletPimpernickel on September 28, 2009

    I guess after the Duvall “you got em me spankem” lobbyist incident, FFFF thought it better to keep their two well paid Gotcha Girls undercover.

    The power of money…even FFFF has its secret weapons.

  8. #8 by Joe Sipowicz on September 29, 2009

    It’s funny how the law ‘n order Repuglicans like to ignore the law when it inconveniences them. The Ackerman apologists and hangers-on like that Martin Wisckol are perfectly willing to buy into the idea that the Constitution is “unenforceable.” Who says so?

    Notice how they avoid words like illegal or ethical. It’s lawyers tricks to stick the rest of us with creatures like the Ackerman woman.

Comments are closed.