This Washington
Early Jolt: Goldmark v. McKenna
Today's Loser: Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna
The Washington State Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision from last September that the state attorney general's office must defend the Department of Natural Resources in DNR's case against the Okanogan County public utility.[pullquote]It is unfortunate that we had to take the Attorney General to court to compel him to represent the state’s interest.—Natural Resources Commissioner Peter Goldmark[/pullquote]
DNR commissioner Peter Goldmark, a liberal environmentalist, is pursuing a lawsuit against the Okanogan PUD for attempting to take 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 to build the line.
In its initial ruling for Goldmark, the court noted the appearance of partisanship in McKenna's position, 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.”
Goldmark issued the following statement today (ouch):
McKenna has long held that his legal staff has repeatedly recommended against appealing Goldmark's original loss to the PUD. 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.
The Washington State Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision from last September that the state attorney general's office must defend the Department of Natural Resources in DNR's case against the Okanogan County public utility.[pullquote]It is unfortunate that we had to take the Attorney General to court to compel him to represent the state’s interest.—Natural Resources Commissioner Peter Goldmark[/pullquote]
DNR commissioner Peter Goldmark, a liberal environmentalist, is pursuing a lawsuit against the Okanogan PUD for attempting to take 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 to build the line.
In its initial ruling for Goldmark, the court noted the appearance of partisanship in McKenna's position, 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.”
Goldmark issued the following statement today (ouch):
We can now close this chapter and move forward. My obligation has always been to protect the state’s natural resources and our ability to generate non-tax income for schools and counties. It is unfortunate that we had to take the Attorney General to court to compel him to represent the state’s interest.
McKenna has long held that his legal staff has repeatedly recommended against appealing Goldmark's original loss to the PUD. 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.
