Reader Mark N. writes:
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has moved for an en banc reconsideration/rehearing of the denial of her motion to intervene in the Peruta case (the petition may be found here). The guts of it run about seven pages. Of course she harps on the dissenting opinions in both the main case and in the denial of the motion to intervene, which is in many ways pretty insulting to the majority (and hence not very persuasive). The worst deficiency . . .
is that the brief refers to the pending en banc application in the companion case, Richards v. Prieto (which challenged shall issue practices of Sherif Prieto in Yolo County). But she argues nowhere why the state’s interests cannot be adequately represented by Sheriff Prieto. Or why it is that she didn’t seek to intervene in that case.
But there is an explanation as to why Harris did not intervene in Richards — the state was a named defendant in that action, but successfully moved to dismiss on the basis that it was not a proper party. Richards only affected the application of the sheriff’s discretion in issuing carry permits, not the constitutionality of the state’s may issue law. That is the direct opposite of what is being argued in Peruta.