Idaho’s governing leadership certainly keeps things lively in these troubled times. In the last couple of months, we have witnessed JFAC, the legislative budget committee, setting spending levels before knowing how much revenue might come in, Rep. Mike Moyle forcing yet another imprudent tax cut favoring the wealthy and Governor Little criticizing the mess as unbalanced but then meekly signing it into law.
Low and behold, the Governor’s skimpier revenue projection seems to be coming true, so the state is now facing the real possibility of spending cuts. We have just learned that on May 29 Little sent agency heads a directive to identify spending cuts of up to 6%. That would mean upwards of $180 million for public education. The $50 million education tax credit bonanza that Little and the Legislature gifted to families that are sending their kids to private and religious schools will add to the revenue shortfall. Those families’ $5,000 per child tax benefit will not be subject to the spending cut.
Just as we heard of the dire budgetary situation facing state agencies, we learned that Governor Little will be paying $300,000 for Idaho State Police officers to transport undocumented workers to ICE detention facilities. Quite frankly, I think our marvelous ISP officers have much better things to do than acting as a taxi service for ICE. The fact is that Idaho’s law enforcement officers have the capacity to deal with all serious criminals in the state. That means ICE has to fill its deportation quotas with the long-time residents who help grow our crops, operate our dairies and provide the muscle for Idaho’s construction boom. Another interesting fact is that undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than U.S. citizens.
Another source of political drama raised its head on June 17, when the Idaho Land Board voted to dispense with the legal advice and services of Attorney General Raul Labrador. That slap in the face was delivered by the Governor, the Secretary of State, the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Controller. Labrador was the only one who opposed the move. It is the first time in state history that the Land Board decided to go elsewhere for legal counsel. Labrador claimed that the affront was a result of his telling the Land Board “no,” but he provided no examples. Indications are it was a lack of trust, which is essential to an attorney-client relationship.
Labrador claimed that the Idaho Constitution requires all state entities to use the Attorney General as their lawyer. I agree with his contention. Indeed, just about everyone in the state believed that to be the case until Frank Benson was elected as Attorney General in 1958. Benson was undoubtedly the worst AG in Idaho history. He was rather unschooled in the law and obsessed with the idea that then-Governor Bob Smylie was bugging his office, which resulted in him punching holes in the wall to look for bugs. Some state agencies began hiring their own legal counsel, which Benson tried to stop with a case that went to the Idaho Supreme Court. The Court, apparently unwilling to force state agencies to use Benson’s services, ruled against him. That situation existed until former Attorney General Al Lance was able to get legislation passed in 1995 that partially restored the AG’s exclusive authority to represent state entities. If Labrador were to take the Land Board to court, seeking to force it to take his legal advice, he might get the same result.
One thing that is critical for a lawyer, whether in private or public practice, is to establish credibility with the judiciary. If a lawyer who appears before the court is not totally honest or plays fast and loose with the facts or the law, he or she will lose credibility. It may not make a difference in those cases where the result is clear cut. Many cases, however, can go either way. The lawyer who has established strong credibility can tip the outcome in his or her favor when opposing counsel is less than trustworthy.
That is why it is distressing to have the state’s lawyer, the Attorney General, frequently being caught short on credibility in performing the responsibilities of his position. Labrador was found to have provided biased ballot titles for the open primaries initiative and then, again, for the abortion initiative. Labrador repeatedly contended before the federal court in Idaho, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, that Idaho’s total abortion statute was the same as a federal emergency-care law when it came to treating a woman with life-threatening pregnancy complications. It was obvious to each court that he was wrong, which hurt his credibility in that case and will color it in any future case that he may bring before those tribunals. Being less than candid can be fatal to a lawyer’s case.
