Saying he's saving taxpayer funds, Attorney General Terry Goddard on Friday bowed out of defending the legality of the state's new immigration law.
In a letter to Gov. Jan Brewer, Goddard said he still disputes her contention that she alone can control the defense of SB 1070 in five separate federal court lawsuits that have been filed so far. Goddard said while Brewer is entitled to play a role in defending the state, the Arizona Constitution makes him the state's attorney.
And Goddard said his staff has been working cooperatively with the private attorneys Brewer has hired.
But he told Brewer that a letter she sent him Monday threatening to go to court to have him thrown off the case would create an entire new side issue and detract from the underlying need to defend the law.
"More fundamentally, it would constitute yet another wasteful political lawsuit at taxpayers' expense at a time when our state cannot afford another political feud,'' the attorney general wrote.
Gubernatorial press aide Paul Senseman said Goddard did the right thing.
"The governor's grateful that he's changed his mind,'' Senseman said. "She agrees that he has a conflict of interest in this case and that she speaks on behalf of the state of Arizona on SB 1070.''
Goddard said no such conflict exists.
He acknowledged he has never been a fan of the legislation which requires police who have stopped someone to check their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion'' if they are in this country illegally. It also allows police to charge illegal immigrants with trespass and creates new state crimes of harboring or concealing those in this country in violation of federal immigration laws.
Goddard nothing in the law solves the underlying problem of illegal immigration.
But Goddard said lawmakers subsequently made some changes to the original statute that make it legally defensible, including removing a provision that would have allowed police to consider a person's race, ethnicity or national origin in determining who to question. Goddard said he was prepared to make those arguments in court, regardless of his personal opinion about the merits of the measure.
Brewer's successful move to be the sole legal defender of SB 1070 carries political risks for the governor. If the law is struck down, then Goddard, the lone Democratic candidate for governor, could say she botched it by deciding to go it alone.
That thought has crossed his mind.
"Our defense of the statute would be far more effective and would take advantage of the best legal team in Arizona by doing it cooperatively,'' he told Capitol Media Services.
Separately, Brewer said late Friday her defense team was filing legal papers asking a federal judge to throw out the main challenge to the law.
Brewer said her lawyers are arguing that the challengers in that suit "lack standing to pursue their claims and have failed to establish any real and immediate threat of harm.'' The governor said the response in the case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the National Immigration Law Center, says claims the Arizona law infringe on the exclusive right of the federal government to regulate immigration are "without merit.''
Generally speaking it would be Goddard's office that defends the legality of state statutes.
But lawmakers, in changes to the original SB 1070, directed Goddard to act at the governor's direction. And it empowered Brewer to hire outside lawyers to defend the law if she wanted.
Brewer did just that almost immediately, contending Goddard's personal opposition made him an unsuitable defender. That fight escalated on Monday when she told him to bow out or she would go to court force the issue.
Goddard said his inherent constitutional authority as attorney general trumps the legislation.
"Although we would win, it would be a very significant distraction, costly in both time and money,'' Goddard said of that fight.
"It would be very, very debilitation to the state's effort'' to defend SB 1070, he continued. "So I think that in the best interest of Arizona it was necessary to step down and not be a participant.''
Goddard said he believes the governor's whole effort to mount the sole defense of the law is political, saying she hopes "to seek partisan political points.''
Butters posted at 7:02 pm on Fri, Jun 18, 2010.
And of course, Terry isn't trying to score any political points with the DNC by opposing SB-1070. I believe that as much as I believe that Terry is going to some day marry a woman.
DataMan posted at 7:37 pm on Fri, Jun 18, 2010.
Good move on Goddard's part. Stepped away on his own terms, and saved a BS fight with our HS graduate Gov. that would cost the state money and make AZ appear to be even more screwed up to the rest of the country.
Goddard was right, Brewer was wrong. No question about it.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:02 pm on Fri, Jun 18, 2010.
Goddard has already stated he doesn't believe in SB1070. So there is a conflict of interest. No question about it.....
DataMan posted at 10:14 pm on Fri, Jun 18, 2010.
masterrouge.. Did you read Goddard's letter, or are you posting uninformed nonsense? He's had a 100% success rate in defending AZ immigration laws, even ones he didn't agree with.
forkedlift1 posted at 9:42 am on Sat, Jun 19, 2010.
Amen, DataMan. Brewer couldn't/can't/won't separate the legal from the political and that threatening letter she sent Goddard last Monday was the dumbest thing she could have done. The state's best legal defense of that law would of course have been achieved by both the best heads of the AG's office and her Snell & Wilmer lawyers working together as they had already begun to do.
Goddard was wise to step aside, not bite on her threat to misuse the court to enhance her political sideshow distraction.
Sad that our governor sees everything in political terms.....to her own detriment and to the detriment of the best interests of the state.
SunWorshiper posted at 2:34 pm on Sat, Jun 19, 2010.
[wink] Goddard says: "But he told Brewer that a letter she sent him Monday threatening to go to court to have him thrown off the case would create an entire new side issue and detract from the underlying need to defend the law. "
Let me go on record as saying this "concession for the good of the people" by Goddard MAY have an ulterior motive in the overall big picture for him politically.
If you'll all remember back to the start of your Memorial Day Week end, you may recall Pres Obama QUIETLY instructed the Supreme Court to revview the AZ Employer Sanctions Law (passed in 2008). I do believe that was signed during Janet Napolitano's time as Gov and I faintly recall her comments being "that's the way to go after the employers hiring illegals." Well, Terry Goddard was also AG at that time (wasn't he?). Skip forward a couple years to Obama being totally against "everything AZ &100% for foreign countries" and Janet heading up Homeland Security. If the Employer Sanctions is tied to SB 1070 litigation somehow, it could be a little "iffy" for Terry Goddard to be defending it (no matter how much he likes to say he'd be saving money). Just saying'...
forkedlift1 posted at 5:15 pm on Sat, Jun 19, 2010.
SunWorshiper,
You brought out some good points, but I tend to think that Goddard called it as he saw it on the immediate issue (thanks to Brewer) of her wrongfully and stupidly threatening to go to court to remove the AG's office from its constitutional duty to defend the state in this matter.
I think the Employer Sanction Law, from the state's point of view, would be easy enough to defend since it already has passed muster in federal court. I presume it must have been the AG's office (Goddard) that successfully defended the Employers Sanction Law, so that would not be inconsistent with any prior position of the AG's office.
I puzzled at first over Holder's request to have it reviewed by the USSC in advance of a ruling on SB 1070, and the only thing I could think of is that it is unnecessarily INCLUDED in SB 1070 and is not at all a reflection of federal immigration law which is the claim of the author(s) of SB 1070.
As I understand it, the foremost contention by the plaintiffs in these lawsuits is that SB 1070 is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore an advance ruling on that portion of SB 1070, one way or the other, that was needlessly included in the bill, would get it out of the way to be able to focus more pertinently on the Supremacy Clause and whether or not Arizona (or any state) has the power to pre-empt federal immigration law.
I think the Solicitor General just wants to get that matter of the ESL out of the way, whether or not the lower court erred in its ruling, perhaps because other states have apparently also adopted Employer Sanction Laws of their own.
In any event, I don't think it would be "iffy for Terry Goddard to be defending" that ESL portion of SB 1070 since he obviously successfully defended it before.
Those are my guesses as to why the USSC is being asked for a ruling on the Employers Sanction Law. We'll just have to see what happens.
Meanwhile this whole matter will be costing the state (us) bundles in legal fees to say nothing of the boycotts and a non-recovering economy the longer this drags on.
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:46 pm on Sun, Jun 20, 2010.
Dataman: You mentioned something about "uninformed nonsense".
You then mentioned "He's had a 100% success rate in defending AZ immigration laws, even ones he didn't agree with."
Tell me, pray tell, where that's mentioned in the article? Where's your proof of this 100% victory "even with one's didn't agree with"?
The truth remains, it is conflict of interest. But don't take my word for it. Here's link:
http://www.businessethics.ca/definitions/conflict-of-interest.html
Now, what was that about "uninformed nonsense"?
I respect that Goddard stepped down, it was the correct thing to do, given the situation....