[
[
The Coeur d’Alene Press editorial board lived up to its reputation for delivering “You’ve got to be kidding me!” absurdity in its Sunday editorial titled Advice free, lawsuits aren’t.
The predicate issue for the editorial content was a piece of anti-abortion legislation in Idaho. But the Press editorial board’s absurdity was in its underlying assumption that Idaho’s legislators should blindly accept the “ruling” of the Idaho attorney general, whom the Press proclaims to be “… the state’s top legal authority… ”
Let’s look at a very recent recommendation from “the state’s top legal authority.” It was in a letter dated October 25, 2010, signed by Stephen Bywater, Deputy Attorney General, Chief of the Criminal Law Division, and sent to Canyon County Prosecutor Brian Taylor.
Bywater was responding to Taylor’s request for the AG to investigate allegations of misuse of public money by the Caldwell East Urban Renewal Agency (CEURA) commissioners. The Caldwell YMCA, an urban renewal project, had received urban renewal money. The CEURA commissioners had then used CEURA money (public money) to buy memberships for themselves in the YMCA, ostensibly to allow them to “inspect” their project. Bywater recommended against prosecution because although he acknowledged there was a “clear violation of Idaho law,” the “state’s top legal authority” also noted “…there is a reasonable argument to be made that the gym memberships were paid in order to facilitate CEURA’s inspection of the YMCA facilities.”
Okay, so isn’t Bywater’s recommendation on behalf of the “state’s top legal authority” really smart lawyering? Isn’t he just anticipating what he believes to be a viable defense that the “state’s top legal authority” could not overcome at trial?
One could look at it that way, except that isn’t the law. You see, the Idaho urban renewal law itself explicitly provides urban renewal agency commissioners with the power of inspection on any urban renewal agency project. That power is codified in Idaho Code 50-2007(c) which relevant part reads:
50-2007. Powers. Every urban renewal agency shall have all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this act, including the following powers in addition to others herein granted: (c) within its area of operation, to enter into any building or property in any urban renewal area in order to make inspections, surveys, appraisals, soundings or test borings, …
The CEURA didn’t need to spend public money to buy memberships in the YMCA so its commissioners could “inspect” its project. Idaho law explicitly gave it the power of inspection. Is it possible that the “state’s top legal authority” was bending over backwards to find reasons not to prosecute politically and economically influential public officials who misused public money?
Perhaps the Coeur d’Alene Press editorial board should aggressively investigate and report instances of misuse of public money in Coeur d’Alene rather than writing clownshoes editorials admonishing the legislature for not blindly following the opinions of the “state’s top legal authority.”
I agree that the AG’s office is weak; ignored or followed by corrupt government officials when convenient to them. Regarding the editorial in The Press this morning, I believe the topic was the cost to the state. On that topic, the AG is correct: It’s going to cost this state millions to defend the new anti-abortion law. Especially given the competency level of the AG’s office in the first place, that’s an expense I don’t think that the state can afford.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2011 @ 8:48 am
Maybe the state will do what municipalities and counties do — hire outside trial litigators rather than use the in-house attorneys.
Comment by Bill — March 27, 2011 @ 9:11 am
As issues go this one is well worth the cost. Pro-choice defines life in rather obvious terms, in and out of the womb. But at what point in its life will a fetus playfully reach out to explore that murderous suction probe determined to extinguish its young life? While it may be that it could be better done or better defended I take pride in this state for taking a stand for the innocent. Any who suggest otherwise need only to deeply ponder their own infant prodigies and see them as chunks of dead flesh casually tossed aside in a Hefty bag. For what it is worth and for what it might cost I am proud of our state gov’t for choosing on the side of those most indefensible.
Comment by Wallypog — March 27, 2011 @ 1:46 pm
But you’re not getting squat “for the cost” Wallypog. The case is going to be defeated, which means you get what? Less money for other things or higher taxes.
Wasting Idaho taxpayer dollars to make a statement is frivolous. I know some people think this is the impassioned abortion debate, but it’s not about abortion. The looming Federal lawsuit is not going to stop any abortion or make a statement. It’s simply going to waste money.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
Whoa – slow down there. There is no “new anti-abortion law” – only talk of one and it’s holed up in a senate committee where it was introduced.
Comment by Gary Ingram — March 27, 2011 @ 4:44 pm
It seems to me that some issues are very much worth taking a stand on by principle alone. Late term abortions are quite heinous when unwanted pregnancies can be easily avoided prior to their onset. We are providing an expensive and dangerous medieval fix for a simple problem. I’d rather give away birth control devices for free, if that is what it takes.
Comment by Wallypog — March 28, 2011 @ 6:57 am