*751 Opinion
The plaintiff, Susan Bysiewiez, brought this action against the defendants, Nancy DiNardo, the chair of the Connecticut Democratic Party, the Connecticut Democratic Party and the office of the secretary of the state of Connecticut seeking a declaratory judgment that, in carrying out her responsibilities as the secretary of the state, she has engaged in the active practice of law within the meaning of General Statutes § 3-1241 or, in the alternative, that the statutory requirement that the attorney general be “an attorney at law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state” violates article sixth, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution, as amended by articles two and fifteen of the amendments.2 Thereafter, the Connecticut Republican Party (intervening defendant) filed a motion to intervene as a defendant, which the trial court granted.3 After a trial to the court, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs performance of her responsibilities as the secretary of the state constituted the active practice of law under § 3-124 and, accordingly, rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The intervening defendant then filed this appeal.4 After an expedited hearing, this court ren*752dered judgment in the form of a truncated opinion reversing the judgment of the trial court and declaring that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements of § 3-124 and that the statute was constitutional. We indicated that a full opinion explaining our decision would be released at a later date. This is that opinion.
The trial court found the following facts. The plaintiff has served as the secretary of the state since 1999. She graduated from Duke University School of Law in 1986 and spent the next six years as an attorney in private practice at law firms in New York City and Hartford. She then spent two years practicing health care and pension law at Aetna Life and Casualty Insurance Company in Connecticut. From 1993 to 1999, the plaintiff represented the constituents of the 100th district in the state House of Representatives. She was elected as the secretary of the state in November, 1998.
The plaintiffs statutory responsibilities as the secretary of the state include acting as the commissioner of elections pursuant to General Statutes §§ 9-35 and 9-4.6 *753In that capacity, she is authorized to issue, and has issued, “[regulations], declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions” on issues of election law under title 9 of the General Statutes. In addition, the plaintiff has advised local election officials regarding the proper methods of conducting elections. The plaintiff also has worked with her staff to draft proposed legislation and regulations concerning the areas for which the secretary of the state has responsibility or oversight.
On January 13, 2010, the plaintiff declared her candidacy for the office of attorney general. Thereafter, questions arose as to whether: (1) “active practice at the bar of this state” as used in § 3-124 requires more than being a member of the Connecticut bar; (2) if so, whether the plaintiff meets the qualifications for the office of attorney general as set forth in § 3-124; and (3) if she does not meet those qualifications, whether § 3-124 is unconstitutional under the state and federal constitutions. In her capacity as commissioner of elections, the plaintiff requested an opinion from the current attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, on these questions. The attorney general issued a formal opinion in which he concluded that § 3-124 requires more than being a member of the Connecticut bar with an active status and that the statute was constitutional. The attorney general also concluded that the question of whether the plaintiff meets the requirements of the statute “must *754be left to judicial determination pursuant to established judicial procedures.”
The plaintiff then filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that she satisfied the criteria set forth in § 3-124 or, in the alternative, that the statute was unconstitutional under article sixth, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution. The intervening defendant claimed as special defenses that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that the action was barred by the doctrines of laches, equitable estoppel and waiver. In its memorandum of support of its special defense that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the intervening defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked standing because she had made no claim and presented no evidence that anyone had called into question her right to run for the office of attorney general.
The trial court determined that the plaintiff had standing to bring this action and that her claims were ripe. The trial court then rejected the plaintiffs claim that “merely being admitted to and maintaining one’s active status as a member of the Connecticut bar for at least ten years” satisfies the requirements of § 3-124.7 It also rejected the intervening defendant’s claim that “active practice at the bar of this state” means active practice as a litigator. Instead, the trial court concluded that “the ‘ten years’ active practice’ requirement . . . must be understood to mean that the attorney general had ten years experience actually engaging in some form of legal practice as a member of the bar of this state, although not necessarily doing so in a courtroom, or on a continuing basis, or with any particular degree of frequency or intensity.” The court also concluded that, when a person “us[es] legal judgment and skill to apply the law to specific facts and circumstances, [he or] she is practicing law.” Finally, the court found that the *755plaintiffs performance of some of her duties as the secretary of the state constituted the active practice of law under § 3-124. Accordingly, it rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
The intervening defendant then brought this appeal claiming that the trial court improperly rejected its claim that § 3-124 requires that, to be eligible to serve as the attorney general, a person have ten years active practice before the courts of this state as a litigator. After the intervening defendant filed the appeal, this court sua sponte ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the question of whether the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff had standing to bring this action and that her claims were ripe. In its supplemental brief, the intervening defendant contended that the trial court improperly concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff disputes both the intervening defendant’s jurisdictional claims and its claim on the merits. She also claims as an alternate ground for affirmance that, if this court agrees with the intervening defendant’s interpretation of § 3-124, the statute is unconstitutional under article sixth, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution.8 We conclude that the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiff had standing and that her claims were ripe. We further conclude that the plaintiff’s performance of her responsibilities as the secretary of the state does not constitute the “practice of law” under § 3-124. Finally, we conclude that § 3-124 is constitutional.
I
We first address the intervening defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiff had standing to seek declaratory relief and that her claims were ripe. Specifically, the intervening defendant claims that there is no question or uncertainty about *756whether the plaintiff is entitled to run for the office of attorney general and any question about her qualifications to serve in that office axe not ripe. We disagree.
“The purpose of a declaratory judgment action, as authorized by General Statutes § 52-299 and Practice Book § [17-55],10 is to secure an adjudication of rights where there is a substantial question in dispute or a substantial uncertainty of legal relations between the parties.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Kelley, 224 Conn. 110, 115, 617 A.2d 433 (1992). Practice Book § 17-55 requires that the plaintiff be in danger of a “loss or of uncertainty as to [his] rights or other jural relations” and that there be a “bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute or substantial uncertainty of legal relations . . . .” Thus, “[declaratory relief is a mere procedural device by which various types of substantive claims may be vindicated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Kelley, supra, 115-16.
“Implicit in these principles is the notion that a declaratory judgment action must rest on some cause of action that would be cognizable in a nondeclaratory suit. . . . To hold otherwise would convert our declaratory judgment statute and rules into a convenient route for pro*757curing an advisory opinion on moot or abstract questions . . . and would mean that the declaratory judgment statute and rules created substantive rights that did not otherwise exist.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 116.
Despite these limitations on declaratory judgment actions, neither the statutes nor the Practice Book contain “any restriction upon the power of the court to render judgments determining rights which are contingent upon the happening of some future event. Indeed, a contrary intent is clearly indicated by the provision in the rules authorizing the determination of any fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of any right, power, privilege or immunity does or may depend, whether such right, power, privilege or immunity now exists or will arise in the future. The remedy by means of declaratory judgments is highly remedial and the statute and rules should be accorded a liberal construction to carry out the purposes underlying such judgments. One great purpose is to enable parties to have their differences authoritatively settled in advance of any claimed invasion of rights, that they may guide their actions accordingly and often may be able to keep them within lawful bounds, and so avoid the expense, bitterness of feeling and disturbance of the orderly pursuits of life which are so often the incidents of law suits. Fully to carry out the purposes intended to be served by such judgments, it is sometimes necessary to determine rights which will arise or become complete only in the contingency of some future happening. Even if the right claimed ... is a contingent one, [it is appropriate for determination in an action for a declaratory judgment if] its present determination [will] serve a very real practical need of the parties for guidance in their future conduct. A construction of our statute and rules which would exclude from the field of their operation the determination of rights, powers, privileges and immuni*758ties which are contingent upon the happening or not happening of some future event would hamper their useful operation. Such a construction does not, however, compel the Superior Court to decide claims of right which are purely hypothetical or are not of consequence as guides to the present conduct of the parties. The second of the limitations upon the exercise of the power contained in the rules is designed to cover just such situations. It provides that there must be an actual, bona fide and substantial question or issue in dispute, or a substantial uncertainty of legal relations which requires settlement.” Sigal v. Wise, 114 Conn. 297, 301-302, 158 A. 891 (1932).
“It is a basic principle of our law . . . that the plaintiffs must have standing in order for a court to have jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) St. George v. Gordon, 264 Conn. 538, 546, 825 A.2d 90 (2003). “Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion. One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he [or she] has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy. . . . When standing is put in issue, the question is whether the person whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of the issue .... [Because] [standing requires no more than a colorable claim of injury . . . a [party] ordinarily establishes . . . standing by allegations of injury [that he or she has suffered or is likely to suffer]. Similarly, standing exists to attempt to vindicate arguably protected interests.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilcox v. Webster Ins., Inc., 294 Conn. 206, 214, 982 A.2d 1053 (2009).
“[I]t is the burden of the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor . . . clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judi*759cial resolution of the dispute. ... It is well established that, in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged. . . . Because a determination regarding the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction raises a question of law, our review is plenary.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 213-14.
With these principles in mind, we turn to the questions of whether the plaintiff in the present case has standing to bring this action for a declaratoiy judgment and whether her claims were ripe for adjudication when brought. We answer both questions in the affirmative. First, we agree with the plaintiff that there is a “substantial question ... or a substantial uncertainty” as to whether she meets the qualifications contained in § 3-124 and whether the statute is constitutional. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilson v. Kelley, supra, 224 Conn. 115. The plaintiff contends that the application of legal judgment and skills to specific facts and circumstances constitutes the practice of law under § 3-124, and that, to meet that provision’s “active practice” requirement, it is sufficient to have engaged in some form of legal practice as a member of the bar of this state, “although not necessarily doing so in a courtroom, or on a continuing basis, or with any particular degree of frequency or intensity,” and that a narrower construction of § 3-124 would violate article sixth, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution. The attorney general takes no position on the meaning of § 3-124, but contends that, regardless of its meaning, it is constitutional. The intervening defendant contends that § 3-124 requires that the attorney general must have been an active litigator for ten years and that it is constitutional.
Second, the present action seeks relief that would be available in a “cause of action that would be cognizable in a nondeclaratory suit.” Wilson v. Kelley, supra, *760224 Conn. 116. Specifically, one seeking judicial review of a person’s qualifications to serve in public office may bring a quo warranto action pursuant to General Statutes § 52-491.11 See Carleton v. Civil Service Commission, 10 Conn. App. 209, 215, 522 A.2d 825 (1987) (“[a] quo warranto action seeks to oust an illegal incumbent from public office”). Moreover, we agree with the plaintiff that her declared intention to run for the office of attorney general and her particular interest in avoiding the great effort and expense of running for that office if her qualifications to serve in that office could be successfully challenged upon her election are sufficient to confer standing on her to bring this action.
Finally, although we recognize that a quo warranto action would not be ripe until the plaintiff actually took office,12 this court has held that “[o]ne great purpose [of a declaratory judgment action] is to enable parties to have their differences authoritatively settled in advance of any claimed invasion of rights, that they may guide their actions accordingly and often may be able to keep them within lawful bounds . . . .” Sigal v. Wise, supra, 114 Conn. 301. In light of the potential injury to the plaintiffs interests if her claims are not adjudicated until after the election, as well as the potential injury to the public’s interest in avoiding voter confusion and disruptions in the election process, including the possibility of a vacancy in the office of attorney general, we conclude that the action was ripe when it *761was brought even though the plaintiff had not yet been nominated or elected to the office of attorney general. See Kneip v. Herseth, 87 S.D. 642, 649, 214 N.W.2d 93 (1974) (Declaratory judgment actions involving a determination of eligibility for public office “resolve the uncertainty surrounding a person’s candidacy by determining his status at a timely point. They prevent the watering down of the voter franchise by explaining who could run before a vote was irretrievably lost.”); id., 652 (because purpose of declaratory judgment “is to afford security and relief against uncertainty, attempting to avoid litigation which results from the destruction of peace, with a view toward declaring rights rather than executing them, then before they are infringed upon voting and candidacy rights or status should be determined”); see also Sigal v. Wise, supra, 302 (“[a] construction of our statute and rules which would exclude from the field of their operation the determination of rights, powers, privileges and immunities which are contingent upon the happening or not happening of some future event would hamper their useful operation”). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims.
II
We next address the intervening defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiffs performance of her duties as the secretary of the state constituted the active practice of law under § 3-124. Specifically, the intervening defendant claims that, to be eligible to serve as the attorney general under § 3-124, a candidate must have ten years experience in litigating cases in court. The intervening defendant further claims that, even if litigation experience is not required, the plaintiff did not have “ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state” because she has not, on behalf of clients and as her primary means of livelihood, *762engaged in conduct that required a high degree of legal skill for ten years. We agree with both claims.
The trial court found the following additional facts that are relevant to our resolution of this claim.13 In her capacity as the secretary of the state, the plaintiff consults with the attorneys on her staff14 on a variety of legal matters, including requests from local election officials, political candidates and party officials for declaratory, rulings pursuant to § 9-3 and instructions and opinions concerning the administration of elections and primaries under state election law. For example, in a declaratory ruling issued to all registrars of voters, mayors, first selectmen, town clerks and members of the General Assembly, the plaintiff formally banned the continued use of lever voting machines in Connecticut in order to comply with state and federal law. In another ruling, the plaintiff, relying on an opinion from the attorney general, responded to questions from a person who was circulating nominating petitions for an independent political party regarding the validity of the petitions. The trial court found that, in each of these cases, “the plaintiff was personally involved in finding answers to the legal question posed, evaluating input sought from other attorneys on these questions, and ultimately deciding on the substance and final language of the ruling.” The trial court concluded that these activities constituted the practice of law and that the plaintiffs clients in each case were the state and the general public.
*763The plaintiff also collaborated with the attorneys on her staff to formulate answers to questions from local election officials regarding the proper conduct of elections. The office of the secretary of the state receives numerous requests for such advice every day, especially in the days leading up to an election. In one instance, the plaintiff received a telephone call from the mayor of Hartford inquiring what to do about a public school principal’s plan to close his school, which was a polling place, before the polls closed on election day. The plaintiff advised the mayor that he should prevent the planned closure because an established polling place cannot be moved to another location without providing reasonable notice to local voters before election day. In another instance, the plaintiff received an inquiry from the first selectman of the town of Suffield as to whether proper procedures had been followed with respect to the conduct of a postelection recount. The plaintiff and two attorneys on her staff responded to the inquiry by telephone and the plaintiff asked one of the attorneys to send a confirmatory letter to the first selectman. The trial court concluded that these activities also constituted the practice of law and that the plaintiffs clients in these instances were the state and its citizens.
Previous secretaries of the state who were not attorneys, and members of their staffs who were not attorneys, provided similar information to local election officials in the past. The office of the secretary of the state currently has no established protocol requiring that the plaintiff or another attorney on her staff approve any declaratory ruling, instruction or opinion concerning state elections law before it is issued. The office does not keep formal records of the declaratory rulings, instructions, opinions or advice that it has provided.
*764In addition to providing declaratory rulings and answering requests for advice on matters related to elections, the plaintiff and other attorneys on her staff have monitored, implemented and taken positions on new legislation that could affect the ability of the office of the secretary of the state to perform its core functions and have advocated for legal reform in areas relevant to the functions of her office. For example, the plaintiff played an active role in lobbying Connecticut’s federal congressional delegation to resist the passage of legislation that would burden her office with new reporting responsibilities concerning persons suspected of terrorism and that would require attorneys to report their suspicions about the identities and activities of their own clients to federal homeland security officials. She also lobbied the Veterans Administration to change its policy prohibiting state officials from conducting voter registration and information programs in Veterans Administration hospitals. In addition, she supported legislation that made it easier for military personnel serving overseas to obtain absentee ballots and to vote. Finally, the plaintiff has been heavily involved in implementing the Help America Vote Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq., actions which required interpreting federal law and advising state legislators and others of her conclusions. The trial court concluded that, although many of these activities did not constitute the practice of law, the plaintiffs “efforts to monitor federal legislation and keep the General Assembly abreast of new or impending federal legislation that would or might require compliance with federal standards by the state” constituted the practice of law and that her clients were the state and its citizens.15
*765We begin our analysis of the intervening defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s interpretation of § 3-124 with the standard of review. The meaning of § 3-124 is a question of statutory interpretation and therefore our review is plenary. Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324, 332, 984 A.2d 684 (2009). “The principles that govern statutory construction are well established. When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. ... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § l-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered. . . . When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for inteipretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 332-33.
None of the parties in the present case claims that the meaning of the phrase “an attorney at law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state”; General Statutes § 3-124; is clear and unambiguous, and we conclude that it is not. Indeed, this court previously has stated that, “because of the manifold activities which might be held included in the phrase ‘practice of law,’ an all-inclusive definition is difficult, if not impossible, of formulation.” Grievance Committee v. *766 Dacey, 154 Conn. 129, 147, 222 A.2d 339 (1966), appeal dismissed, 386 U.S. 683, 87 S. Ct. 1325, 18 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1967); see also id., 145 (“Attempts to define the practice of law have not been particularly successful. The reason for this is the broad field covered.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]). Thus, we may “look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Grady v. Somers, supra, 294 Conn. 333.
“A principle which is foundational to our system is that the inherent powers of government reside in the people. This is given expression in the right to vote, and thus to choose the public officials who will serve them; and the correlative right of citizens to aspire to public office and serve therein if so chosen.” Cannon v. Gardner, 611 P.2d 1207, 1211 (Utah 1980). Accordingly, statutory limitations on eligibility to run for public office should be liberally construed, and any ambiguities should be resolved in favor of a candidate’s eligibility. See Carter v. Commission on Qualifications of Judicial Appointments, 14 Cal. 2d 179, 182, 93 P.2d 140 (1939) (“[a]mbiguities are to be resolved in favor of eligibility to office”); Scharn v. Ecker, 88 S.D. 255, 258, 218 N.W.2d 478 (1974) (“[t]here is a presumption in favor of eligibility of one who has been elected or appointed to public office, and any doubt as to the eligibility of any person to hold an office must be resolved against the doubt” [internal quotation marks omitted]); Cannon v. Gardner, supra, 1211 (statutes addressing right to hold public office “should receive a liberal construction in favor of assuring . . . the right to aspire to and hold public office”); Gerberding v. Munro, 134 Wn. 2d 188, 202, 949 P.2d 1366 (1998) (“eligi*767bility to an office ... is to be presumed rather than to be denied, and . . . any doubt as to the eligibility of any person to hold an office must be resolved against the doubt” [internal quotation marks omitted]); Cathc-art v. Meyer, 88 P.3d 1050, 1070 (Wyo. 2004) (“there is a strong presumption in favor of eligibility for office”).
With these principles in mind, we turn to a review of the circumstances surrounding the enactment of § 3-124 and the legislative policy that it was designed to implement. Section 3-124 was enacted in 1897, when the office of attorney general was created. See Public Acts 1897, c. CXCI, § 3 (P.A. 191).16 Before the enactment of P.A. 191, state officers and agencies confronted with legal questions or actions were required to retain private counsel to resolve the questions and to represent the officers and agencies in legal proceedings. See H. Cohn, “The Creation and Evolution of the Office of Connecticut Attorney General,” 81 Conn. B.J. 345, 346 (2007). Public Act 191 required the attorney general to take over these duties, including appearing for the various offices and agencies in “all suits and other civil proceedings” and bringing all actions for them. See P. A. 191, § 2.17 Because the bulk of the attorney general’s *768statutory duties involved representing state officers and agencies in court and in other tribunals, it is reasonable to conclude that, in requiring in the same public act that the attorney general be “an attomey-at-law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state”; P.A. 191, § 3; the legislature intended to ensure that the attorney general would have some experience in litigation.
Indeed, when P.A. 191 was enacted, nonattomeys were permitted to engage in much conduct that was “commonly understood to be the practice of law.” Grievance Committee v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325, 330, 22 A.2d 623 (1941). The only activity that nonattomeys were specifically prohibited from engaging in was “plead[ing] at the bar of any court of this State . . . .” General Statutes (1887 Rev.) § 784.18 See Grievance Committee v. Payne, supra, 330 (“Prior to 1933 the prohibition of the statute [relating to conduct by nonat-tomeys] was primarily directed against the appearance in court by persons not admitted to the bar. ... In that year [the prohibition was] broadened by the addition of the provision that unauthorized persons should not *769‘practice law.’ ” [Citations omitted.]).19 This court has interpreted the phrase “plead at the bar of any court of this state” to mean to appear in court. See id.; see also State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222, 233-34, 140 A.2d 863 (1958). The fact that, when P.A. 191 was enacted, nonattomeys could engage in any conduct that attorneys could engage in except appearing in court further supports the interpretation that the requirement of § 3-124 that the attorney general have “ten years’ active practice at the bar” meant that the attorney general must have had some experience in active practice in court, 20 and that the legislature wanted to ensure that the attorney general would have both the legal status required to appear in *770court on behalf of state officers and agencies — namely, admission to the bar — and the practical experience to litigate effectively.
This interpretation is also bolstered by the 1891 edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines “attorney at law” as “[a]n advocate, counsel, official agent employed in preparing, managing, and trying cases in the courts. An officer in a court of justice, who is employed by a party in a cause to manage the same for him.”21 Black, Dictionary of Law (2d Ed. 1891). This definition is in contrast to the definition of “attorney,” which provides in relevant part: “In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another.” Id. This suggests that, when P.A. 191 was enacted, the term “attomey-at-law” was understood to mean a person who litigated cases in court.
We conclude, therefore, that, as used in § 3-124, the phrase “attorney at law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state” means an attorney with at least some experience litigating cases in court. Although the presumption of eligibility might require this court to conclude that an attorney who has not practiced exclusively or even primarily as a litigator for at least ten years is qualified to hold the office of attorney general under § 3-124, the presumption does not authorize us to ignore the clear intent of the legislature that the attorney general must have some measure of experience in trying cases.22 Because it is undisputed that the plaintiff has no experience representing per*771sons in court, we must conclude that she does not meet the eligibility requirements of § 3-124.23
*772The plaintiff claims, however, that “the job of a modem attorney general is far different” than the job in 1897 because the current attorney general “supervises a staff of experienced litigators and provides policy direction for the office . . . .” She contends that “the fulfillment of those functions does not require ten years of experience personally trying cases.” We note, however, that General Statutes § 3-12524 sets forth substan*773tially the same duties as does P.A. 191, § 2. Accordingly, even if we were to assume that the original meaning of § 3-124 could change to reflect the changing duties of the attorney general without any formal amendment to the statute, the legislature has not seen fit to reheve the office of its original duties. Indeed, as we explain more fully in part III of this opinion, the duties of the attorney general have expanded and become more complex since the office was created. Although the attorney general may not personally carry out the statutory duties of the office in every matter that comes before it, by maintaining the text of § 3-125, the legislature has *774demonstrated that it continues to expect him or her to be legally authorized and practically qualified to do so.
Moreover, even if we were to construe § 3-124 to incorporate a broader, more general understanding of the practice of law, we would still conclude that the plaintiff does not meet that statute’s requirements. This court previously has held that, in determining whether certain conduct constitutes the practice of law, the decisive question is whether the conduct is “commonly understood to be the practice of law.” Grievance Committee v. Payne, supra, 128 Conn. 330; see also Statewide Grievance Committee v. Patton, 239 Conn. 251, 254, 683 A.2d 1359 (1996). In making this determination, this court has considered a number of factors. In State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., supra, 145 Conn. 235, this court held that functions that “require ... a high degree of legal skill and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations,” or are “performed with the possibility of litigation in mind,” may constitute the practice of law. See also Statewide Grievance Committee v. Patton, supra, 254-55 (same); Grievance Committee v. Payne, supra, 329 (function that was “highly technical and [would] often [demand] the entire time and study of a specialist” constituted practice of law). In addition, this court has suggested that, for conduct to constitute the practice of law, the conduct must be undertaken on behalf of a client. See State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., supra, 236 (“acts and practices [that were primarily for the benefit of the defendants themselves] did not constitute the practice of law”); see also id., 234-35 (functions that require good moral character, capable of “undivided allegiance, a conspicuous degree of faithfulness and disinterestedness, absolute integrity and utter renunciation of every personal advantage conflicting in any way directly or indirectly with the interests of [the] client,” *775constitute “customary functions of attorneys and counselors at law outside of courts”).
Moreover, although these cases do not address the issue, because § 3-124 sets forth a competency requirement, we conclude that it necessarily contains a quantitative component.25 The trial court’s conclusion that the phrase “at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state” does not require “any particular degree of frequency or intensity” effectively reads the “ten years’ ” language out of the statute. Indeed, if we were to accept this interpretation literally, that would mean that an attorney who had engaged in the practice of *776law in a single instance ten years earlier would be qualified to represent the state and all of its officers and agencies in court. Although the determination as to whether an attorney has engaged regularly in the practice of law as the primary means of earning a livelihood may be a matter of judgment, and doubts must be resolved in favor of the person seeking the office, we cannot conclude that the legislature intended that a person with that minimal degree of experience in the practice of law would be qualified to serve as the attorney general.
This conclusion is bolstered by a review of cases involving rules permitting a member of the bar of another state to seek admission to the bar of the forum state if he or she has sufficient experience in the practice of law. For example, in Attorney Grievance Committee v. Keehan, 311 Md. 161, 165, 533 A.2d 278 (1987), the Court of Appeals of Maryland construed a rule that allowed a member of the bar of another state to seek admission to the Maryland bar if “for at least five of the seven years immediately preceding the filing of his petition [the petitioner] has been regularly engaged ... as a practitioner of law . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The rules defined “practitioner of law” as “a member of the [b]ar of another [s]tate . . . who throughout the period specified in the petition has regularly engaged in the practice of law in such jurisdiction as the principal means of earning his livelihood and whose entire professional experience and responsibilities have been sufficient to satisfy the [b]oard [of law examiners] that the petitioner should be admitted . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The petitioner in the case had been admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania and, thereafter, had been employed as a claims adjuster by an insurance company for ten years. Id., 164. For five of those years he had “shared a law office gratuitously in York, Pennsylvania,” where his practice *777was “minima! . . . .” Id. Specifically, he had handled ten to fifteen cases per year and had worked approximately fifteen hours per week in the law office. Id., 168. When the petitioner applied for membership in the Maryland bar, he failed to disclose his primary employment as a claims adjuster and described himself as a “sole practitioner.” Id., 166. As a result, the attorney grievance commission found that he had “failed to disclose a material fact requested in connection with . . . his application for admission to the bar” in violation of the Maryland Code of Professional Responsibility; id., 163; a finding with which the trial court agreed. Id.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that “[t]he reason for [the rule allowing admission of attorneys who have regularly practiced in another state] rests on the assumption that a lawyer who has regularly engaged in the practice of law, as a chief means of earning the lawyer’s living over a period of years, has sufficient legal knowledge to demonstrate at least minimum competence . . . .” Id., 167. The court concluded that the petitioner’s legal experience was “desultory [and] simply does not show one who throughout the period specified in the petition has regularly engaged in the practice of law ... as the principal means of earning his livelihood . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 168. Accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Id., 169-70; see also In re Application of Stormont, 238 Kan. 627, 628-29, 712 P.2d 1279 (1986) (because purpose of rule requiring that applicant to bar have “actively performed legal services for which a license to practice law is required” was to ensure “an acceptable level of professional ethics and knowledge,” “[t]he occasional practice of law in another jurisdiction” did not satisfy rule [internal quotation marks omitted]); In re Stanton, 828 A.2d 529, 530 (R.I. 2003) (for purposes of rule governing admission to bar, requirement that applicant had been *778engaged in active practice of law requires “a showing that the legal activities of the applicant were pursued on a full-time basis and constituted his regular business” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State ex rel. Laughlin v. Washington State Bar Assn., 26 Wn. 2d 914, 927, 176 P.2d 301 (1947) (as used in rule governing admission to bar, “actual practice” means “the opposite of casual or occasional or clandestine practice and carries with it the thought of active, open and notorious engagement in a business, vocation, or profession” [internal quotation marks omitted]); In re Pierce, 189 Wis. 441, 452, 207 N.W. 966 (1926) (as used in rule governing admission to bar, “ ‘actual practice’ requires, and must command, a substantial portion of the working time of a practitioner”).26
*779We recognize that, unlike the Maryland Code of Professional Responsibility, § 3-124 does not expressly require that the attorney general have practiced law for ten years as the “principal means of earning his [or her] livelihood . . . .” Attorney Grievance Committee v. Keehan, supra, 311 Md. 165. Nevertheless, it is clear to us that, in light of the statute’s clear purpose of ensuring that the attorney general is competent to represent the state in court and to provide legal advice to the state and all of its officers and agencies, the statute necessarily imposes a quantitative requirement. We conclude, therefore, that the phrase “ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state” as used in § 3-124 means that the attorney general must have regularly engaged in the practice of law as a primary means of earning his or her livelihood for at least ten years.
Finally, we conclude that the representation of clients is an essential element of the “active practice at the bar of this state” under § 3-124. See State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., supra, 145 Conn. 236 (“acts and practices [that were primarily for the benefit of the defendants themselves] did not constitute the practice of law”). It is reasonable to conclude that, by enacting the statute, the legislature intended to ensure that the attorney general had not only an ingrained knowledge of ethical practices, but also an established record of treating clients with “undivided allegiance, a *780conspicuous degree of faithfulness and disinterestedness, absolute integrity and utter renunciation of every personal advantage conflicting in any way directly or indirectly with the interests of [the] client.” Id., 234. The regular representation of clients develops not only legal skills, but also these habitual ethical postures and practices.27 Both of these components are equally indispensable to the competent practice of law.28
With these principles in mind, we turn to the question of whether the plaintiffs performance of her duties as *781the secretary of the state, as found by the trial court, constitute the active practice of law under § 3-124. We first consider whether the plaintiff engaged in the active practice of law when she collaborated with the attorneys on her staff to formulate answers to questions from local election officials regarding the proper conduct of elections and when she issued regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions on issues of election law under title 9 of the General Statutes. We conclude that these activities did not constitute “ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state.” General Statutes § 3-124.
First, although the plaintiffs formal training as an attorney occasionally may have been useful to her in carrying out her routine statutory duties pursuant to § 9-4, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the performance of those duties is “commonly understood to be the practice of law”; Grievance Committee v. Payne, supra, 128 Conn. 330; or that it requires the “high degree of legal skill and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations” that characterizes the practice of law.29 State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., supra, 145 Conn. 235. Indeed, as the trial court recognized, there is no requirement that the secretary of the state be an attorney, and previous secre*782taries of the state have not been attorneys.30 Nor is there any evidence that the plaintiffs activities were significantly different from the activities engaged in by these nonattomey predecessors.31
We note that, to the extent that special legal skills may be required to answer a particular question or to render a particular ruling, the authority to perform these services on behalf of all state agencies, including the secretary of the state, is conferred exclusively on the attorney general under § 3-125. See General Statutes § 3-125 (“[a]ll legal services required by such officers and boards in matters relating to their official duties shall be performed by the Attorney General or under his direction”). It is reasonable to conclude that the legislature conferred this responsibility on the attorney *783general in recognition of the fact that a state officer responsible for administering a particular statutory scheme typically will not have the legal status or experience to practice law. Thus, it is implicit in § 3-125 that the legislature believes that agency heads, including the secretary of the state, generally are capable of carrying out their routine duties without having the “high degree of legal skill and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations” that characterizes the practice of law. State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., supra, 145 Conn. 235. Although an agency head should have a deep familiarity with the statutory scheme that he or she is charged with administering, and with the public policies that the scheme is intended to implement, he or she need not have the ability to determine the meaning of an inherently ambiguous statute, to resolve apparent inconsistencies between the scheme and important public policies embodied in other statutory schemes, or to determine whether a particular application of a statute complies with the state and federal constitutions. Indeed, if we were to agree with the plaintiff that, in carrying out her routine responsibilities under § 9-4, she was engaging in the practice of law, then we would have to conclude that every member of every state agency and local commission who is an attorney and who is charged with implementing a statutory and regulatory scheme and with issuing rulings and decisions in accordance with the scheme, is practicing law within the meaning of § 3-124. We do not believe that such an interpretation is consistent with the primary purpose of the statute.32
*784Second, even if we were to assume that, in carrying out her statutory functions, the plaintiff occasionally engaged in conduct that required a high degree of legal skill and that would, therefore, constitute the unautho*785rized practice of law under General Statutes § 51-88 if performed by a private nonattomey; see footnote 31 of this opinion; we have concluded that the occasional practice of law does not constitute the “active practice” of law under § 3-124. Rather, the active practice of law means the regular practice of law as the primary means of earning a livelihood. The trial court found only four specific instances in which the plaintiff had issued declaratory rulings or provided advice to local officials concerning the conduct of elections.33 We conclude that this conduct was not sufficient to constitute the active practice of law under § 3-124.34
*786Finally, we disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that, because the plaintiffs activities benefited the state and its citizens, they were the plaintiffs clients when she performed her statutory duties. Rather, we conclude that, in carrying out her duties under § 9-4, the plaintiff, like other agency heads, was executing the public policies of the state as an agent and officer of the state.35 In other words, she was acting primarily on behalf of her office. See State Bar Assn. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., supra, 145 Conn. 236 (“acts and practices [that were primarily for the benefit of the defendants themselves] did not constitute the practice of law”). Although the plaintiff may have had a special duty to the state to faithfully carry out its public policies and statutory directives, that duty arose from her position as an agent and officer of the state, not from a confidential attorney-client relationship between her and the state, or its citizens. In carrying out her responsibilities as the secretary of the state, the plaintiff did not have any of the obligations to the state and the public that an attorney has to a client, such as the obligation to maintain confidentiality, the obligation to abide by the client’s decisions, the obligation to obtain the client’s informed consent before engaging in a course of conduct or the obligation to avoid representing clients with conflicting interests. See generally Rules of Professional Conduct 1.0 through 1.18. Indeed, it may well be that the interests of a particular citizen or election official to whom the plaintiff had given advice in the form of declaratory rulings or opinions were not identical with the interests of the state or of the general public. It is clear to us that, in giving advice to one person that was intended to benefit another *787entity, namely, her employer, the plaintiff could not have been practicing law as that term is commonly understood. We recognize that, in making the determination as to whether an attorney regularly has represented clients, all doubts must be resolved in favor of the attorney for purposes of § 3-124. We must conclude in the present case, however, that the state and its citizens were not the plaintiffs clients in any sense of the word. We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiff was not engaged in the practice of law when she collaborated with the attorneys on her staff to formulate answers to questions from local election officials regarding the proper conduct of elections, and when she issued regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions on issues of election law under title 9 of the General Statutes.
For similar reasons, we conclude that the plaintiffs “efforts to monitor federal legislation and keep the General Assembly abreast of new or impending federal legislation that would or might require compliance with federal standards by the state” did not constitute the practice of law under § 3-124. Again, in carrying out these activities she was executing the duties of her office, not representing a client. It is clear, for example, that if the state or the public had concluded that the plaintiff had misinterpreted federal law, that she had failed to inform the legislature adequately of its requirements, or that she had faded to carry out legislative efforts to comply with federal law, the remedy would not be to sue her for malpractice or to sanction her for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.36 See Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (“[a] lawyer shall provide *788competent representation to a client”); id., 1.2 (a) (“a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation”). Rather, the remedy would be to elect another secretary of the state. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court improperly determined that the plaintiff had “ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state” under § 3-124.
Ill
The plaintiffs final claim is that the trial court’s judgment may be affirmed on the alternative ground37 that § 3-124 is unconstitutional because it conflicts with article sixth, § 10, of the constitution of Connecticut, as amended by articles two and fifteen of the amendments.38 That section provides that “[e]very elector who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be eligible to any office in the state, but no person who has not attained the age of eighteen shall be eligible therefor, except in cases provided for in this constitution.”39 Conn. Const., amend. XV, § 3. According to the plaintiff, *789article sixth, § 10, is an exclusive prescription of the qualifications a person must possess to be eligible for the office of attorney general and, therefore, the legislature is powerless to require different or additional qualifications by way of statute. Consequently, the plaintiff claims, the requirement of § 3-124 that the attorney general be an attorney-at-law of at least ten years’ active practice at the bar of Connecticut is unconstitutional. We are not persuaded.
When determining whether a statutory provision conflicts with the state constitution, this court must begin with a strong presumption of the statute’s validity. Honulik v. Greenwich, 293 Conn. 641, 647, 980 A.2d 845 (2009). “It is well established that a validly enacted statute carries with it a strong presumption of constitutionality, [and that] those who challenge its constitutionality must sustain the heavy burden of proving its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . The court will indulge in every presumption in favor of the statute’s constitutionality .... Therefore, [w]hen a question of constitutionality is raised, courts must approach it with caution, examine it with care, and sustain the legislation unless its invalidity is clear.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McKenzie-Adams, 281 Conn. 486, 500, 915 A.2d 822, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 888, 128 S. Ct. 248, 169 L. Ed. 2d 148 (2007). “It is an extreme act of judicial power to declare a statute unconstitutional. It should be done with great caution and only when the case for invalidity is established beyond a reasonable doubt. ... It is not enough that a statute goes to the verge of constitutional power. We must be able to see clearly that it goes beyond that power. In case of real doubt a law must be sustained.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Honulik v. Greenwich, supra, 647.
“[I]n State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 685, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992), we set forth six factors that, to the extent *790applicable, are to be considered in construing the contours of our state constitution so that we may reach reasoned and principled results as to its meaning. These factors are: (1) the text of the operative constitutional provision; (2) holdings and dicta of this court and the Appellate Court; (3) persuasive and relevant federal precedent; (4) persuasive sister state decisions; (5) the history of the operative constitutional provision, including the historical constitutional setting and the debates of the framers; and (6) contemporary economic and sociological considerations, including relevant public policies. . . . Although, in Geisler, we compartmentalized the factors that should be considered in order to stress that a systematic analysis is required, we recognize that they may be inextricably interwoven. . . . [Moreover], not every Geisler factor is relevant in all cases.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 157, 957 A.2d 407 (2008). Finally, when interpreting constitutional provisions, this court “strive[s] to achieve a workable, commonsense construction that does not frustrate effective governmental functioning, at least where such is not clearly contradicted by application of the [interpretative tools] enumerated in Geisler.” Honulik v. Greenwich, supra, 293 Conn. 648 n.10.
We begin with the text of article sixth, § 10, of the constitution of Connecticut, as amended by articles two and fifteen of the amendments. See footnote 2 of this opinion. Pertinently, the provision’s minimal qualification requirements, read literally, apply to the holder of “any office in the state . . . except in cases provided for in this constitution.” Conn. Const., amend. XV, § 3. The plaintiff argues that the phrase “any office in the state” is unambiguous and plainly means “every office in the state.” Article sixth, § 10, has been part of Con*791necticut’s constitution since 1818.40 Prior to 1897, however, the office of attorney general did not exist. Accordingly, the constitutional provision, when originally enacted, could not have been intended specifically to apply to that office. We note in this regard that, “[t]o understand the intent of the instrument it is often necessary to have recourse to the form of government as it had existed before, and did exist at the time of, the adoption of the constitution.” Dowe v. Egan, 133 Conn. 112, 119, 48 A.2d 735 (1946); see id., 119-20 (examining governmental structure prior to 1818 to determine scope of provisions outlining powers of treasurer and comptroller); see also Walkinshaw v. O’Brien, 130 Conn. 122, 128-29, 32 A.2d 547 (1943) (examining structure of court system prior to 1818 to interpret term “ ‘inferiour courts’ ” in article fifth, § 1, of Connecticut constitution).41 Although the plaintiff *792argues that the drafters of article sixth, § 10, must have worded the provision broadly with the intent that it apply to future as well as already existing offices, she offers no particular reason why the language used compels that conclusion rather than an equally plausible competing one, namely, that the drafters had in mind only those offices then in existence. Accordingly, we reject the plaintiffs suggestion that the constitutional text at issue is dispositive in answering the question before us. Cf. State v. Gathers, 197 Conn. 369, 386, 497 A.2d 408 (1985) (rejecting defendant’s argument as to “plain meaning” of article first, § 8, because, “[although the simplicity of the defendant’s argument may have some superficial appeal, important questions involving constitutional principles, as a general rule, cannot be so easily solved” [internal quotation marks omitted]).
We turn next to relevant jurisprudence from this state’s courts. The limited number of cases implicating article sixth, § 10, or its predecessors, have not construed the qualifications provision literally to apply to “every office in” Connecticut, but instead, have held it applicable only to offices of state government that are constitutional in nature. See Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 176-77, 177 n.5, 251 A.2d 49 (1968) (article sixth, § 10, applies only to state constitutional offices and, therefore, does not cover probate judges); Hackett v. New Haven, 103 Conn. 157, 168, 130 A. 121 (1925) (provision applies only to state constitutional offices and, therefore, does not cover municipal board members); see also Mills v. Gaynor, 136 Conn. 632, 639, 73 A.2d 823 (1950) (provision inapplicable to town officers); Scully v. Westport, 20 Conn. Sup. 399, 402, 137 *793A.2d 352 (1957) (same). “A constitutional office is understood to be one expressly named in and created by [a] constitution, whereas a statutory office is one created by legislation.” Annot., 34 A.L.R.2d 161, § 1 (1954); see also 63C Am. Jur. 2d 497, Public Officers and Employees § 15 (2009). Because the office of attorney general is a constitutional one; see part III of this opinion; this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs position.
Due to the fact sensitive nature and, therefore, multiple distinguishing characteristics of cases concerning legislative power to prescribe qualifications for public offices, we find little guidance for resolving the issue before us in decisions of our sister states or the federal courts.42 See annot., supra, 34 A.L.R.2d 163, § 3 (warning at outset “that the terms and general import of the individual state constitutions in their provisions with respect to eligibility for public office generally, and in laying down qualifications or disqualifications for particular offices, and in other relevant provisions, exhibit so many differences from state to state that substantial caution must be observed in extracting general principles or corresponding views from the case law on the present subject, and in considering the applicability of such principles as do emerge”). The particular extrajurisdictional precedent on which the plaintiff relies is readily distinguishable on the basis of key differences in the constitutional language at issue; see, e.g., State ex rel. Boedigheimer v. Welter, 208 Minn. 338, 340, 293 N.W. 914 (1940) (construing constitutional eligibility provision that explicitly applied to both existing offices and those yet to be created);43 the *794offices at issue; see, e.g., Gerberding v. Munro, supra, 134 Wn. 2d 202-203 (construing constitutional eligibility provisions as they applied to offices that already were in existence at time provisions were adopted); or in the specific historical evidence available that supported the conclusion reached. See, e.g., U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 789-93, 115 S. Ct. 1842, 131 L. Ed. 2d 881 (1995) (restating analysis of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed. 2d 491 [1969], based on historical evidence of British parliamentary experience, constitutional convention debates concerning federal congressional qualifications clause, postconvention ratification debates and state convention debates);44 see also Gerberding v. Munro, supra, 203-204 (analyzing state constitutional convention materials surrounding adoption of eligibility provisions).
The historical circumstances surrounding both article sixth, § 10, and the amendment of another constitutional provision, article fourth, § 1, are unique and particularly useful for deciding the issue at hand. To reiterate, when the predecessor to article sixth, § 10, originated in 1818, the position of attorney general did not exist. As we have indicated, the office of attorney general was created by statute in 1897. P.A. 191, § 1. As we also have indicated, P.A. 191, § 2, defined the powers and duties of the office, assigning to it a broad range of quintessentially legal responsibilities,45 and *795P.A. 191, § 3, created the eligibility requirements that appear to this date in § 3-124.46 Because the office of attorney general at its inception clearly was a statutory one, and not a constitutional one, article sixth, § 10, was not implicated. See Adams v. Rubinow, supra, 157 Conn. 176-77, 177 n.5; Hackett v. New Haven, supra, 103 Conn. 168. As a general matter, “the legislature has full control over offices created by its enactment of a statute, whereas its power over constitutional offices is limited . . . .” Annot., supra, 34 A.L.R.2d 168, § 4; see also 63C Am. Jur. 2d 498, supra, § 15.
It was not until 1970, by a constitutional amendment approved after a public referendum,47 that the office of attorney general became a constitutional one. See Blumenthal v. Barnes, 261 Conn. 434, 443 n.10, 804 A.2d 152 (2002); Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 234 Conn. 539, 572, 663 A.2d 317 (1995); Commission on Special Revenue v. Freedom of Information Commission, 174 Conn. 308, 318-19, 387 A.2d 533 (1978). Specifically, this was accomplished by amending article fourth, § 1, of the constitution,48 which governs the election of executive branch officers, to *796include the attorney general among the executive branch officers listed.49
*797Aside from the amendment to article fourth, § 1, to include the attorney general in the general elections for state constitutional officers, no other provisions were added to the constitution in 1970, or thereafter, outlining the attorney general’s powers and duties. This stands in contrast to the other previously existing constitutional offices enumerated in article fourth, § 1, each of which has particular provisions defining its role and, in some cases, adding further qualifications that one must possess to be eligible for the office. See, e.g., Conn. Const., art. IV, § 5 (general duties of governor); Conn. Const., art. IV, § 22 (general duties of treasurer); Conn. Const., art. IV, § 23 (general duties of secretary); Conn. Const., art. IV, § 24 (general duties of comptroller). The failure of the legislature to propose any additional provision relating to the attorney general, other than that mandating his election, strongly suggests that that body, when proposing that the attorney general be made a constitutional officer, intended to retain for itself the responsibility for defining the specific powers and duties of the office, and accordingly, to incorporate for the time being the existing statutory provisions pertaining to the attorney general. The alternative, that the legislature intended to propose the creation of a constitutional office having no powers and duties, defies common sense. Cf. Brown v. Blake, 46 Conn. 549, 551 (1879) (concluding that statutory reference to first selectmen formally created office that long had existed informally with certain duties and powers, “unless we impute to the legislature the intention to do no more than to give a name empty of meaning or power”).
Accordingly, we conclude that in proposing the amendment to article fourth, § 1, and presenting it to *798the electorate for approval, the legislature intended to retain for itself the authority to define the minimum qualifications for holders of the office of attorney general, thereby incorporating the existing qualification requirements of § 3-124, and by necessary implication, exempting the position from the preexisting generalized qualifications provision of article sixth, § 10.50 The alternative, namely, that the legislature intended to make someone as young as eighteen and, more importantly, a nonattomey, eligible for the office of attorney general, is wholly implausible. When making the attorney general a constitutional officer, the legislature’s stated intent was to elevate and protect the office due to its increasing importance. See footnote 48 of this opinion. The myriad duties of the office since its inception more than seventy years earlier were almost entirely legal ones. See footnote 17 of this opinion. For the legislature, sub silencio, to eliminate the statutory eligibility requirements, particularly the requirement that the officeholder be an experienced attorney, would create the possibility of rendering the office totally ineffective through the election of a candidate unqualified to perform any of its duties. We cannot conclude that the legislature intended such a result.
We turn last to contemporary economic and sociological considerations. The reasons prompting the move to create the office of attorney general, and thereafter to make the office a constitutional one, have not abated, *799but only have grown. The attorney general’s statutoiy responsibilities have expanded. See General Statutes §§ 3-125 through 3-130; see also, e.g., General Statutes § 17b-301 (prosecution of fraud in public medical assistance programs); General Statutes § 35-32 (enforcement of antitrust laws). The office continues to represent the interests of the state, its citizens and businesses in a wide range of legal matters of great public importance. See Connecticut State Register and Manual (2009), pp. 216-18. (describing fourteen major practice areas of attorney general’s office). In a given year, the office is party to tens of thousands of legal actions, and through its various collection and enforcement activities, generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue for the state and its citizenry.51 In short, the continuing importance of the office and its ever expanding role as the state’s legal advocate weigh in favor of a conclusion that the legislature intended to retain the requirement of § 3-124 that the office be overseen by an attorney with substantial practice experience.
Our consideration of the Geisler factors leads us to conclude that the office of attorney general impliedly is exempt from the general qualification requirements for state constitutional officers prescribed by article sixth, § 10, of the constitution of Connecticut. Consequently, § 3-124, although setting stricter qualifications for the attorney general than those listed in article sixth, § 10, is not unconstitutional.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to render *800a declaratory judgment that the plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of § 3-124.
In this opinion KATZ, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js., concurred.