Gov. Jan Brewer is threatening to have Attorney General Terry Goddard blocked from interfering in what could be the most broad-based challenge to the state's new immigration law.
In a letter Monday to Goddard, the governor asked him to step aside "so my legal team can set forth the best defense possible in the immigration lawsuits currently before the federal district court.''
But Brewer said she's not counting on his cooperation.
"If you do not withdraw your motion to intervene ... I will pursue all legal remedies available to me to have you removed as counsel for the state of Arizona to ensure the state a true and proper defense,'' Brewer wrote.
Goddard, who has opposed the immigration law, said he has no intention of withdrawing. That will leave it up to a federal judge to decide who gets to speak for the state.
And he said Brewer is off base in presuming that only her privately hired attorneys are able to defend the legality of the statute.
Monday's letter is the latest dust-up between the pair who, if Brewer wins the Republican primary, will face off in the general election for governor. And it points up that the new immigration law will be a key issue.
Goddard opposed SB 1070 when it was first passed by the Legislature and signed by Brewer. It requires police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped if there is "reasonable suspicion'' the person is in this country legally. Another provision makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime.
In fact, Goddard said in April he would not personally be involved in defending the law against the anticipated lawsuits because he is campaigning against Brewer and publicly called on her to veto the measure. Those determinations, he said, would be made independently by his chief deputy.
Brewer, in her Monday letter, said Goddard's comments "leave me and the citizens of Arizona with serious doubt as to your ability to defend the state in these legal challenges.''
But Goddard said Monday those comments all came before lawmakers subsequently made some changes that he said made the law legally defensible. One specifically prohibits police from using race as a factor in determining who to question; the other says people can be questioned only after they have been stopped by police for some other reason.
"I believe it can be defended as being within the state's powers under the constitution,'' he told Capitol Media Services.
Goddard said, though, that doesn't mean he necessarily supports the law, even in its amended form.
"You know perfectly well there's a huge difference between whether you think it's a good idea and whether you believe there's a feasible and professional defense that can be made under the constitution,'' he said. "And that is exactly the position I've taken.''
Those amendments to SB 1070 also specifically gave Brewer permission to direct the defense of the law as well as to hire outside counsel rather than have Goddard's office handle the case.
Goddard noted, though, those changes, like the original law, do not take effect until July 29. In the interim, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund want an order barring the overall law from taking effect.
Four other lawsuits also have been filed challenging all or part of the law.
Irons1 posted at 9:26 pm on Mon, Jun 14, 2010.
Privately hired attorneys, paid for by whom? The Arizona taxpayer that's who. Another lawsuit and defense of a lawsuit that you and I will pay for, and the GOP pretends it's there for the taxpayer. Which taxpayer? The middle class guy or the rich guy? More money they will put out and then they will say there is no money for education or health care or anything else, but there is always enough money for their ridiculous lawsuits, over and over again. Between the fighting about Arpaio and the fight over their ridiculous legislation that they have put out this year, the legislature should be required to put out their own money for this baloney. If they were privately hired attorneys then Brewer should pay for it out of her private funds. If that were required, you'd better believe it would end in a hurry.
Bingo6 posted at 9:50 pm on Mon, Jun 14, 2010.
You know what? I don't want our unelected Governor telling us what to do either.
Like every other stupid law sponsored by our white supremecist Governor and her ;like minded GOP legislatures, 1070 will be ruled unconstitutional, and the bill for its useless defense will be paid for by you and me.
This Eva Braun stereotypical clone and her GOP storm troopers are the new face of the Republican Party and these seditonists are a bigger threat to are state and our nation than any illegal will ever be.
forkedlift1 posted at 10:34 pm on Mon, Jun 14, 2010.
Brewer's antagonistic dictum is way out of line.
Her action can only be described as a political power play, a political attempt to cast aspersions on Goddard's integrity, and an attempt to usurp the designated duties vested in the Office of Attorney General.
Plus, since she has insisted on using her own "legal team" as well as the Office of Attorney General, it makes for a stronger case in the state's defense to have them both defend the state.
Therefore, her nasty "it's-either-you-or-me" letter makes no sense.
This case has drawn national and international attention and is perhaps the most significant legal case to come before the state since Arizona's founding when Arizona almost lost its bid to gain statehood over the recall of judges issue.
For the governor to be more intent on picking a public fight with the Attorney General than in defending the state in this very serious matter is probably the most counter-productive thing she could have done.
Rich posted at 11:23 pm on Mon, Jun 14, 2010.
Aren't you just thrilled we voted more money to the state for this nonsense?
Shatmeister posted at 6:19 am on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Irons1
Just like any business, you have to spend money to make money. Spend what it takes to make illegals become legal immigrants, forcing them to become productive in our society and adding to our "LEGAL" economy. The return will be more jobs for "LEGAL" immigrants and US Citizens, less need for taxing the 'LEGAL" taxpayers to death, and a massive drop in crime. Not a dollar, I'd be afraid to spend...
Bingo6
If 1070 is ruled unconstitutional, then the Federal law would have to be ruled unconstitutional as well, although not for the same reasons. I think our unelected governor will become an "elected" official soon enough. Also, I don't get the Eva Braun stereotype comment, since Eva Braun had no influence on Nazi politics. You should read up on that...
forklift1
It makes more sense to have our state represented by someone that is going to truly put forth an effort. If Goddard opposes the law, how can he truly defend it?
Just remember, when a law is ignored, the people are being ignored. When officials (on any level) decide not to enforce a law, they are creating an anarchy. " ENFORCE THE LAW, OR GET THE HECK OUT OF OUR WAY!"
Evelynlexo posted at 6:31 am on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
SB 1070 promises to enlarge the gulf between diverse communities and pit groups against one another, rather than encouraging people to work together to find mutually beneficial solutions to challenging issues. New Arizona Immigration Law Tests Definitions of Freedom in the US.
Is it possible to find way out of the situation created? show the world what you think at http://immigration.civiltalks.com
Doodad posted at 7:17 am on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
I really hope Governor Brewer has the legal right to dismiss Goddard, so that she can have the best defense team available to fight this.
And Why Not !
I mean, does a murder suspect want an attorney that thinks they're are guilty, defending them ? ? ? ? [smile]
Irons1 posted at 7:53 am on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Shatmeister, and boy could you take that a few different ways in German, you have to spend money to make money? Who's money? She's not spending hers, she's spending ours. The AZ government doesn't have money remember? They have to sell off their own buildings and lease them back, remember? They are broke, at least that's what they keep saying over and over again, when it comes to education and health care. If they are so darn broke, where is the money coming from to hire private attorneys? Seems the money is there for whatever pet project they want, but not for anything else. Let Goddard do his job or let the legislative idiots pay for this out of their private funds. They certainly have enough.
SunWorshiper posted at 8:29 am on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
[wink] And where were all you naysayers when the county board of supervisors decided to establish their own legal dept because they didn't like former County Atty Thomas??
I say go for it Gov! Why have representation from someone that has openly dissed SB1070 as well as someone that has previously refused to take the interests of the majority at hand (like refusing to sue over Obamacare, forcing the Gov to join the lawsuits with other States).
RollerCam posted at 8:44 am on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Having Terry Goddard defend 1070 is about as stupid as having Raul Grihalva guard the Mexican border.[beam]
SunWorshiper posted at 3:21 pm on Tue, Jun 15, 2010.
Speaking of Raul (as RollerCam was)...
check out azcentral's "Data Connections" to see how your congressmen/women voted. You will see that good ol' Raul MISSED 62 votes, while all others were generally much lower at missing votes. Ya 'spose AZ should boycott Raul, rather than Raul boycott AZ?? Just wonderin' whether we should tie his "votes" to his congressional salary??? .[sad]
forkedlift1 posted at 1:16 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
Shatmeister,
I don't think you understand the legal profession very well, nor the constitutional duty of the Arizona AG's office, to have said, "If Goddard opposes the law, how can he defend it?" Brewer certainly doesn't. Defense attorneys of big time criminals and public defenders of small time crooks surely need not be gung ho about the actions of their clients in order to professionally represent their clients' best interest to the utmost.
Goddard understands the difference between politics and legal professionalism and responsibility. ("There's a huge difference between whether you think it's a good idea and whether you believe there's a feasible and professional defense that can be made under the constitution,'')
Brewer does not. She is incapable of segregating the legal from the political. Some of Brewer's retained private law firm might also have personal reservations about the bill, but that's not the reason they were hired.
Unfortunately, the legislature (at least Pearce and the Republicans) was so focused on cramming SB 1070 through the legislative process to get it passed that apparently no one, not even a Democrat, considered asking the Attorney General's Office for a formal written legal opinion on any aspect of the bill….something the AG is obliged to render when such a request is made. It might have helped to prevent some of the costly legal consequences of their action.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:25 am on Wed, Jun 16, 2010.
I think there would be a conflict of interest. Goddard should step down. If Private lawyers are required, fine. I'd rather my tax money go to the defense of SB 1070 than go to assist ILLEGAL ALIENS as Rose Wilcox would like...
IceCat posted at 6:17 am on Thu, Jun 17, 2010.
[smile] perhaps the idea of SB1070 is mute, since it now appears "it mirrors an out dated federal law", which allows for illegals to be in the country for 30 days before informing authorities.