As Colorado’s attorney general, John Suthers enjoys substantial discretion in shaping the power of his office.
Certainly, many of his duties are spelled out in statute and the state constitution. He protects state water rights, defends the people in criminal appeals and provides counsel on state regulatory matters. And he’s responsible for upholding Colorado’s laws.
But the task list doesn’t speak to the priorities he sets for his time and resources. That can make all the difference in the texture and effectiveness of his tenure.
Critics are wondering about Suthers’ decisions to participate in litigation on a pair of social cases in other states. One involves Nebraska’s law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman and the other tests a Virginia law involving the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
As attorney general, Suthers has the authority to sign on to friend-of-the-court briefs on these and other issues. Jason Dunn, deputy AG, says Suthers does so when he becomes aware of a case involving a state law that’s similar to Colorado law. That is an effort to protect Colorado’s right as a sovereign state to make laws, Dunn said. And Colorado has on the books a similar marriage law and one making the Pledge voluntary.
Certainly Suthers isn’t hiding anything. He highlighted these cases in his 2005 annual report, perhaps hoping to score with some faction of the state Republican Party.
We don’t think that an office as busy as Suthers’ needs to be involved in grandstanding on such issues from other states.
Last week, state Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, questioned why Suthers was taking on partisan legal battles at the same time he is asking for increased office funding. His request is nothing to sneeze at. All told, Suthers is seeking an addition of roughly 10 full-time employees, said spokeswoman Kristin Holtzman. In January, he’ll meet with the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, which has six members, including Pommer, to explain his budget request.
Dunn said it’s a misperception to say that expending resources on amicus briefs somehow diverts significant attention from the AG’s other tasks. We’re inclined to believe it; we see the amicus matter as more of a management issue. Some cases, such as the one involving greenhouse gas emissions that is going before the U.S. Supreme Court today, deserve the AG’s close attention.
The JBC should evaluate Suthers’ budget request on its merits and provide adequate funding for the AG to carry on the important legal tasks of his office. In return, Suthers should quit dallying in out-of-state social issues and focus on the fundamentals.
