Bottom Line
Governor Bob Ferguson as Attorney General files lawsuit after lawsuit against Trump, but a meger amount against President Biden. No need to say more but it certainly must be illegal to use the Attorney General’s Office simply as an operations office for the Demoncratic Party.
- Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed 99 lawsuits against the Trump administration during Donald Trump’s first term as president.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has filed only eight lawsuits against the Biden administration, which has been criticized for undermining border security and allegedly using the Department of Justice against its opponents. In summary, Ferguson, often referred to as “Governor Bubble-Head” or “Attorney General Fentanyl,” is accused of compromising border safety, leading to an influx of drugs into the United States. He has also faced allegations of supporting measures that infringe on free speech, endorsing controversial public school policies that undermine parental rights, restricting freedom of religion, eroding due process as outlined in the Bill of Rights, protecting hate crimes, enabling corrupt law enforcement practices, promoting false accusations, advancing extreme gender ideology, and fostering division among individuals. Washington Attorney General, Ferguson significantly expanded his office, quadrupling the number of attorneys in the consumer protection and antitrust divisions and creating new units for civil rights and environmental cases. His office grew to include a team of 600 lawyers, which supported the filing of 99 lawsuits against the Trump administration. The budget for these expansions was largely funded by settlement proceeds rather than additional legislative funding thus once again using his office as a politcal annex of the Demoncrate Party.
Commissioned Report
Living in a constitutional republic, U.S. citizens entrust elected officials with so many of our legal rights. Yes, we are entrusted with certain rights in some of our nation’s founding documents—including the U.S. Constitution. That being said, those rights are still words on a page. They require human beings to enforce those words.
In the vast majority of cases, those words are properly enforced. However, there are other situations where elected officials in the judicial branch look more to their personal or political ideologies. Even understanding that it is antithetical to their duties as elected officials, these officials continue to act this way.
In this post, I want to explore some instances where these individuals let their individual biases get in the way of their work. Yes, we are all biased to some extent. However, some of these individuals went beyond the pale and let those biases bubble to the surface.
The Case of the Washington State Gubernatorial Election
One case of biases influencing enforcement decision-making comes from the state of Washington. Here, I am speaking about Washington Governor Bob Ferguson. Before Ferguson became governor, he was the state’s Attorney General.
There were several instances where critics could justifiably argue that Ferguson was succumbing to his political biases when he was supposed to be enforcing the law. That being said, one of the most egregious examples surrounded his gubernatorial election.
This example is from just one year ago. Last year, Ferguson was trying to become Washington’s Governor. He was the acting Attorney General at the time. During the campaign, he faced allegations that he was using his position as the Attorney General to change the Democratic primary ballot. Ironically, the two political opponents he was trying to remove shared very similar names to him (their names were Bob Arthur Ferguson and Bob Benjamin Ferguson).
But Ferguson’s desire wasn’t enough. Instead, according to reports, he directed the Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs to modify the primary election ballot. By doing so, Ferguson was accused of violating RCW 9A.80.010.1a, which is a Washington state statute governing official misconduct. It states that “a public servant is guilty of official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit or to deprive another person of a lawful right or privilege: (a) He or she intentionally commits an unauthorized act under color of law; or (b) He or she intentionally refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him or her by law.” Critics even accused Ferguson of threatening his opponents with felony charges.
Ultimately, the controversy raised questions about whether Ferguson’s actions were motivated by personal or political interests rather than impartial law enforcement. Ferguson was inherently conflicted because of his status as the state’s Attorney General and his involvement in the Washington gubernatorial election. At the same time, it is hard to believe that Ferguson took these actions to impartially enforce Washington statutes.
In the end, Ferguson won. He became the Governor of Washington. While this episode was not the only factor that led to his electoral win, it goes to show how he used his status as the Attorney General to partially execute Washington state law.
Selective Prosecutions
Let’s stick with Ferguson. Even when he was the Washington State Attorney General, critics loudly argued that he was engaging in selective prosecution and concealing conflicts of interest.
One great example here involves Ferguson’s relationship with unions. Back in 2014, there were several ballot initiatives that were legally submitted to three Washington cities. These ballot initiatives would have called for more transparency surrounding those cities and unions representing those cities’ employees. Even though there was enough support for the initiatives to hit the ballot, the cities refused a vote on them. In response, activists filed lawsuits in the three affected cities. The activists lost every lawsuit.
However, this is where the real controversy started. After the lawsuits were filed, a union group filed a complaint with the Washington Attorney General’s Office. There were several claims in the union group’s complaint. That being said, one of those claims was that an organization called the Freedom Foundation did not submit proper disclosures when it provided pro bono legal services in the three activist lawsuits.
While the Attorney General’s office found that the Freedom Foundation’s actions didn’t violate Washington state law, it still filed a lawsuit against the organization. Ferguson’s office claimed that the Freedom Foundation didn’t follow guidelines established by Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission. More specifically, the Attorney General’s office argued that those attorneys should have reported the value of their time to the Public Disclosure Commission.
After lengthy litigation, the case went all the way up to the Washington Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision against the Freedom Foundation.
After losing the lawsuit, the Freedom Foundation went one step further. The Freedom Foundation filed lawsuits against the three union groups that were actually opposing the activists’ work to get their initiatives on the ballot. They argued that none of the unions reported the value of the legal services they received. While the unions were found to have violated the same provision, their fines were drastically lower than the Freedom Foundation’s fine.
[su_highlight]The numbers are stunning: the Freedom Foundation had around $14,000 in unreported legal expenses. They had to pay an $80,000 fine. Meanwhile, the unions had $75,000 in unreported legal expenses. *They only had to pay $1,350* in fines. The disparity in fines clearly shows a political bias that the Attorney General’s office had against groups.[/su_highlight]
Prosecutorial Discretion
Finally, let’s talk about prosecutorial discretion. State and federal prosecutors have an immense amount of discretion in determining whether to bring charges against people or corporations.
Complicating the fact is that prosecutorial positions are elected positions. Our natural assumption is that prosecutors will follow the letter of the law. That being said, prosecutors have party affiliations, and sometimes, those party affiliations get in the way of administering justice.
One great example is from the state of Arizona. Maricopa County is Arizona’s most populous county (and the fourth most populous county in the United States). Andrew Thomas was the county attorney and top prosecutor. He was a high-flying prosecutor who actually sought to become Arizona’s Attorney General in 2010.
Thomas ended up losing that election. It may have been because of the controversies surrounding him (notably, his prosecutorial discretion). Before the election, a judge in Pima County ruled that Thomas was acting unethically in investigating county supervisors. The allegation was that he was doing so for political gain. The allegations were so serious that the Arizona State Bar actually convinced the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court to launch a formal investigation into Thomas’s behavior.
After a lengthy investigation, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that Thomas should be disbarred. They released a report and it was damning. Thomas was accused of more than 30 ethics violations and potential criminal conduct. The suspected criminal conduct accused Thomas of trying to intimidate a judge by filing false bribery charges against him. As far as the false bribery charges, Thomas didn’t act alone. Two other prosecutors were accused of conspiring with Thomas.
It took several years. That being said, in April 2012, a three-member panel appointed by Arizona’s Supreme Court voted to disbar Thomas. Among other things, the panel accused Thomas of “outrageously exploit[ing] power, flagrantly foster[ing] fear, and disgracefully misus[ing] the law,” when he served as Maricopa County’s top prosecutor. Thomas denied all wrongdoing.
Keeping Our Elected Officials Accountable
These three examples show how elected officials, especially those serving in law enforcement roles, have significant discretion in enforcing our laws. From the U.S. Constitution to local statutes and ordinances, we trust these officials to make the best decisions with the information they have.
But as we have seen, there are instances where these elected officials don’t uphold their oath. They use their power and access to execute their agenda, whether it is punishing their enemies, rewarding their friends, or entrenching their positions.
It is discouraging to see our elected officials act in this way. But at the same time, it is also encouraging to see that there are at least some systems in place to check their power. The Thomas matter in Arizona is a good example. Even though it took several years, the Arizona Supreme Court decided to disbar Thomas.
In the end, it is up to us to check our elected officials. The best way we can do it is at the ballot box. We can vote for prosecutors, judges, and legal officials who are laser-focused on upholding the letter of the law. However, for those legal officials already in their positions, we have the power to highlight their egregious behavior. With enough criticism and sunlight, higher powers can be forced to act.
As always, we aren’t powerless here. It’s up to us to avoid collective action problems and stand up for ethics, the letter of the law, and our rights.
Disclaimer & Information
Post Number
This Post's ID Number Is= 16867
- Remember the Post ID Number.
- Enter the post number and it will be find.