One of those under-the-radar statewide races on the Nov. 2 ballot is the race for attorney general. The incumbent, Republican J.B. Van Hollen, calls himself the state’s “top cop.” His challenger, Democratic candidate Scott Hassett, the former secretary of the state Department of Natural Resources, views the position differently, preferring to call the A.G. the “people’s lawyer.”
The candidates debated last week at Marquette University Law School, with Mike Gousha as the moderator. Hassett blasted Van Hollen for inserting politics into the attorney general’s duties. Van Hollen argued that even when he took a position that favored Republican policies, the rule of law was always upheld.
So did Van Hollen politicize the office to promote the Republican political agenda? Some points to consider:
* Hassett argued that in September Gov. Jim Doyle had to hire private attorneys to represent the state in challenging a ban on federal funding for stem cell research. Van Hollen has been endorsed by Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Right to Life, both of which oppose embryonic stem cell research.
“The attorney general should have been proactive in recognizing the interest the state has in lifesaving stem cell research,” Hassett said.
Van Hollen said that he was willing to represent the state but that Doyle didn’t give him the chance to do so.
“The governor had made up his mind to retain counsel,” Van Hollen said.
* Hassett charged that Van Hollen refused to defend the state when it was sued by the anti-gay group Wisconsin Family Action over its newly enacted domestic partnership registry. Van Hollen had said on the campaign trail in 2006 that a domestic partnership registry would still be legal in the state even if a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions were approved by voters that November.
“You did a turnabout,” Hassett said.
Hassett added that the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council (WLC) had researched the registry’s provisions and found it to be constitutionaleven with the amendment on the books.
“When push came to shove the law was found to be constitutional,” Hassett said.
Van Hollen said it was the only time in his four-year term that he had refused to represent the state.
|
|
“The law is clearly unconstitutional,” Van Hollen said.
He defended his 2006 comments, saying that he had thought that a registry could be drafted that upheld the constitutional ban, but that the one that was ultimately passed by the state Legislature didn’t meet that standarddespite the findings of the WLC.
* Hassett criticized Van Hollen for filing a lawsuit against the state Government Accountability Board (GAB) in September 2008, just two months before a presidential election with an expected high turnout. What was Van Hollen’s beef? The attorney general said that he wanted the GAB simply to enforce federal election laws by doing extra voter registration checks. But critics charged that Van Hollen’s lawsuit, if successful, would have caused chaos at the polls and suppressed votes, especially among minority citizens. And Van Hollen filed his suit just weeks after the GAB rejected the state Republican Party’s attempt to do the same.
Hassett said last week that the timing of Van Hollen’s lawsuit was key.
“His intent was purely political,” Hassett said. “It would have disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters.”
Van Hollen defended his suit, saying “this particular agency was refusing to implement the law.” In the end, he argued, the GAB started doing the checks that he had requested.
* Hassett argued that the state had no compelling interest in defending Arizona’s controversial new immigration law, which allows local law enforcement to detain anyone they believe to be in the country illegally. Yet Van Hollen did so.
“We don’t have a dog in this fight,” Hassett said.
Van Hollen responded that if portions of the Arizona law were found to be unconstitutional, that would affect Wisconsin’s efforts to enforce federal immigration laws.
