This Washington
McKenna Appeals State Supreme Court Ruling on Lands Commissioner Case
The AP has the story: Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna is asking the state supreme court to reconsider a ruling it issued earlier this month
that the state is obligated to represent Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Peter Goldmark.[pullquote]"This duty is mandatory, and the attorney general has no discretion to deny the commissioner legal representation."—State Supreme Court ruling against McKenna earlier this month.[/pullquote]
Goldmark is pursuing a lawsuit against the Okanogan Public Utility District. The PUD took over state trust lands to build a new transmission line. After suing to stop the PUD from building the line and losing, Goldmark asked McKenna to appeal it, and McKenna said no, arguing that the PUD had the right to use eminent domain.
McKenna pointed out that his legal staff repeatedly recommended against appealing. And he argued (a bit cryptically) that a high court ruling could set a bad broad precedent for larger state interests (potentially complicating the use of eminent domain and property condemnation for things like road construction) and could backfire for state agencies.
Democrats accuse McKenna of tacking to partisan politics for bailing on the outspoken environmentalist Democratic lands commissioner. The court noted the partisan implications as well, writing: "The dangers of such a course of action, [not representing Goldmark] absent an expression from either the legislature or voters that such action is intended, should be obvious in a partisan political system such as ours."
The AP reports today that:
Weird call for McKenna. The court ruled against him 7-2, writing: "This duty is mandatory, and the attorney general has no discretion to deny the commissioner legal representation."
Goldmark is pursuing a lawsuit against the Okanogan Public Utility District. The PUD took over state trust lands to build a new transmission line. After suing to stop the PUD from building the line and losing, Goldmark asked McKenna to appeal it, and McKenna said no, arguing that the PUD had the right to use eminent domain.
McKenna pointed out that his legal staff repeatedly recommended against appealing. And he argued (a bit cryptically) that a high court ruling could set a bad broad precedent for larger state interests (potentially complicating the use of eminent domain and property condemnation for things like road construction) and could backfire for state agencies.
Democrats accuse McKenna of tacking to partisan politics for bailing on the outspoken environmentalist Democratic lands commissioner. The court noted the partisan implications as well, writing: "The dangers of such a course of action, [not representing Goldmark] absent an expression from either the legislature or voters that such action is intended, should be obvious in a partisan political system such as ours."
The AP reports today that:
McKenna says in court documents that the justices "misapprehended law and overlooked fact." He asks the court to reconsider its opinion, even though only two of the nine justices dissented in the decision earlier this month.
Weird call for McKenna. The court ruled against him 7-2, writing: "This duty is mandatory, and the attorney general has no discretion to deny the commissioner legal representation."
