This Washington
Outside Attorney Will Represent Dept. of Natural Resources
In the wake of today's two big newsy Washington State Supreme Court rulings involving state Attorney General Rob McKenna, the AG held a conference call with reporters this afternoon.
The court ruled today: 1) For McKenna, that he could go ahead as a plaintiff in the multistate case against the health care reform law and 2) against McKenna, that the state is obligated to represent Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Peter Goldmark in the DNR's appeal against a ruling in an Okanogan County case that a local utility district could condemn and take over protected state land.
The literal news that came out of the call was that the AG's office would not represent Goldmark, since they disagree with his appeal (they agree with the lower court ruling that the PUD does have the authority to condemn the land). But to honor the Supreme Court ruling that Goldmark has the independent authority to litigate, they will work with DNR to find a private firm to represent him.
I asked McKenna, who prides himself on prioritizing the law and not politics, why voters shouldn't see his challenge to the Obama health care law coupled with his reluctance to take up the case of outspoken environmentalist lands commissioner, Democrat Goldmark, as baldly political. After all, there seems to be a contradiction: He's wants to defend the state interests (in his mind) in one instance (against an "unconstitutional" federal mandate to buy health insurance), yet bail on the state in another when it comes to protecting state lands. What, I asked him, was the connecting thread between his two positions that transcended party lines?
"I'm defending the law," he said referring to legislation that courts have interpreted to mean that Public Utility Districts can condemn state lands. (Goldmark's rejoinder is that the statute governing land trusts doesn't explicitly include language giving smaller agencies the right to rule on state land.)
McKenna's says his fear of taking up the case—one that legal staff repeatedly recommended against appealing—is that a high court ruling could set a bad broad precedent for larger state interests (say the use of eminent domain and property condemnation for things like road construction) and could backfire for state agencies.
Odd footnote. McKenna got uncharacteristically testy with me during the Q&A, raising his voice at me for characterizing the health care law as "Obama's health care law." He said that was a "sloppy characterization."
Perhaps that was his way of transcending party lines and distinguishing himself from the state Republicans. Indeed, the Washington Republicans did a press release this afternoon applauding the court's decision on McKenna's right to challenge the health care law, which they called "Obamacare."
The court ruled today: 1) For McKenna, that he could go ahead as a plaintiff in the multistate case against the health care reform law and 2) against McKenna, that the state is obligated to represent Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Peter Goldmark in the DNR's appeal against a ruling in an Okanogan County case that a local utility district could condemn and take over protected state land.
The literal news that came out of the call was that the AG's office would not represent Goldmark, since they disagree with his appeal (they agree with the lower court ruling that the PUD does have the authority to condemn the land). But to honor the Supreme Court ruling that Goldmark has the independent authority to litigate, they will work with DNR to find a private firm to represent him.
I asked McKenna, who prides himself on prioritizing the law and not politics, why voters shouldn't see his challenge to the Obama health care law coupled with his reluctance to take up the case of outspoken environmentalist lands commissioner, Democrat Goldmark, as baldly political. After all, there seems to be a contradiction: He's wants to defend the state interests (in his mind) in one instance (against an "unconstitutional" federal mandate to buy health insurance), yet bail on the state in another when it comes to protecting state lands. What, I asked him, was the connecting thread between his two positions that transcended party lines?
"I'm defending the law," he said referring to legislation that courts have interpreted to mean that Public Utility Districts can condemn state lands. (Goldmark's rejoinder is that the statute governing land trusts doesn't explicitly include language giving smaller agencies the right to rule on state land.)
McKenna's says his fear of taking up the case—one that legal staff repeatedly recommended against appealing—is that a high court ruling could set a bad broad precedent for larger state interests (say the use of eminent domain and property condemnation for things like road construction) and could backfire for state agencies.
Odd footnote. McKenna got uncharacteristically testy with me during the Q&A, raising his voice at me for characterizing the health care law as "Obama's health care law." He said that was a "sloppy characterization."
Perhaps that was his way of transcending party lines and distinguishing himself from the state Republicans. Indeed, the Washington Republicans did a press release this afternoon applauding the court's decision on McKenna's right to challenge the health care law, which they called "Obamacare."
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
