April 29, 2007 11:34 PM UTC

Denver Post Rips Suthers for "Memo"

• 0 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

Bob Ewegen of The Denver Post ripped Attorney General John Suthers today for his partisan attempt to interject himself into the debate over Gov. Bill Ritter’s school funding plan:

I’ve known six Colorado attorneys general in 35 years at The Denver Post, beginning with the legendary Duke W. Dunbar, who served from 1951 to 1973…

…Of more consequence was Dunbar’s solid reputation for integrity. He loved the law and was famous for always “calling ’em the way he saw ’em,” even if his opinions weren’t what partisans in his own Republican Party were hoping for.

Dunbar, like his successor, John Moore, was a great attorney general who happened to be a Republican. I thought of their legacy Friday when the current officeholder, John Suthers, strode forward in the role of a Republican who happens to be attorney general.

Brandishing a “memo” – he didn’t call it a formal opinion – Suthers said Gov. Bill Ritter’s tax freeze proposal would be unconstitutional if it were not submitted to a statewide vote of the people…

..The Suthers memo, nominally written by Solicitor General Dan Domenico, is a slapdash affair – almost comically so in places. It even twice cites press releases to buttress its legal conclusions. Will Suthers’ next foray into partisan law cite the Mallard Fillmore comic strip?

The reason Suthers called his legal eructation a “memo” rather than an “opinion” is that, quite literally, nobody asked for his opinion. The attorney general is the lawyer for our state government and, normally, only the legislature or governor has standing to ask him for a formal opinion. Not only was such a request not made, Suthers told Ritter two months ago that he was staying out of this fray. That abruptly changed last week. Capitol gossips speculate Suthers ordered the memo drafted after state Republican Chairman Dick Wadhams urged him to join in the GOP attack on Ritter’s attempt to stabilize the state’s education finances.

The hastily crafted memo, which runs just 11 pages, was the result. Its political intent is obvious in the fact that it disputes two much longer and far more carefully researched opinions by the Office of Legislative Services. One was written in 2004 at the request of Republican Sen. Norma Anderson and Rep. Keith King, the majority leaders of their respective chambers. It concluded that the property tax freeze would not violate provisions of the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. As a result, Anderson put such a freeze to the 2004 School Finance Act and it was adopted by the Republican-controlled Senate. Eventually, the measure died in the House.

Legal Services issued a second memo on March 28 of this year that also said the tax freeze “clearly does not constitute a new tax \[or\] tax rate increase” and thus did not require a separate vote of the people…

…As to Suthers, I can only say: I knew Duke W. Dunbar and I learned a lot about integrity from him. There’s a right way to perform public duties, and there’s a wrong way. In this incident, Suthers failed to live up to Dunbar’s fine example.