This Washington
McKenna is Actually Snubbing the Right in Goldmark Case
The Seattle Times finally picked up
on a story Goldy's been pushing for a while over at HA Seattle (the Tacoma News Tribune picked it up back in June
): Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna's refusal to take up a lawsuit by State Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark against the Okanogan Public Utility District.
The Okanogan PUD is taking over state trust lands to build a new transmission line. Goldmark sued to stop it in local district court and lost. He asked McKenna to appeal it, and McKenna said no, telling Goldmark the case was a loser on the grounds that the PUD had the right to use eminent domain—a point that actually undermines Democratic theories that McKenna is behaving like a partisan Republican. Emininent domain is anathema to conservatives.
Goldmark is now challenging McKenna over that decision in state Supreme Court. Goldmark (and Goldy) say there's a constitutional issue: The AG can't pick and choose which departments to defend.
It's a great issue for a Democratic blog like HA to hit: McKenna is the likely GOP candidate for governor in 2012 and his refusal to back a loud Democrat over an environmental issue makes it look like McKenna is using the AG's office for partisan ends, sullying McKenna's rep (his health care lawsuit notwithstanding) as an even-keeled, moderate Republican.
And today, the Times reported:
I'm not sure I agree that McKenna is cozying up to his GOP base by snubbing Goldmark. The main issue in the case is eminent domain—the PUD's right to condemn public land for its use. By letting the PUD go forward, McKenna is siding with the government's right to take over land for agency purposes. Eminent domain is the bete noire of property rights activists, a mainstay of the right.
I'd argue that once again, McKenna—as he did on the R-71 case, in which he supported gay rights activists—is actually just going by the book.
(McKenna is likely to face off against U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA, 1) in the 2012 gov's contest; Inslee told PubliCola he thinks McKenna is constitutionally out of line on the Goldmark issue.)
The Okanogan PUD is taking over state trust lands to build a new transmission line. Goldmark sued to stop it in local district court and lost. He asked McKenna to appeal it, and McKenna said no, telling Goldmark the case was a loser on the grounds that the PUD had the right to use eminent domain—a point that actually undermines Democratic theories that McKenna is behaving like a partisan Republican. Emininent domain is anathema to conservatives.
Goldmark is now challenging McKenna over that decision in state Supreme Court. Goldmark (and Goldy) say there's a constitutional issue: The AG can't pick and choose which departments to defend.
It's a great issue for a Democratic blog like HA to hit: McKenna is the likely GOP candidate for governor in 2012 and his refusal to back a loud Democrat over an environmental issue makes it look like McKenna is using the AG's office for partisan ends, sullying McKenna's rep (his health care lawsuit notwithstanding) as an even-keeled, moderate Republican.
And today, the Times reported:
State Democrats argued that McKenna was cozying up to the PUD, trying to placate a conservative Eastern Washington constituency ...
I'm not sure I agree that McKenna is cozying up to his GOP base by snubbing Goldmark. The main issue in the case is eminent domain—the PUD's right to condemn public land for its use. By letting the PUD go forward, McKenna is siding with the government's right to take over land for agency purposes. Eminent domain is the bete noire of property rights activists, a mainstay of the right.
I'd argue that once again, McKenna—as he did on the R-71 case, in which he supported gay rights activists—is actually just going by the book.
(McKenna is likely to face off against U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA, 1) in the 2012 gov's contest; Inslee told PubliCola he thinks McKenna is constitutionally out of line on the Goldmark issue.)
