(The Center Square) – Attorney General Nick Brown defended his staff’s discussions with lawmakers over the millionaire’s tax that The Center Square reported last week, saying it was appropriate to give legal advice and disagreeing with critics of the emails interactions.
Brown’s office released statements about the emails after The Center Square broke the story April 20.
But Monday was the first time he publicly commented on the controversy that sprung up after the office released nearly 1,000 emails that showed the solicitor general suggesting to lawmakers a clause that would prevent a referendum to reverse the tax.
The Center Square pressed Brown on the documents detailing income tax email discussions on SB 6346.
“Is it appropriate for your office to be giving lawmakers advice on how to break the state Constitution?” The Center Square asked during a press conference where Brown announced his office is suing Albertsons Companies accusing the grocery chain of overcharging shoppers through deceptive “buy one get one free” deals at their various chains.
“I would disagree with your framing of it, but it is very common for AG’s offices to advise their clients on the law, the status of cases…it is something we do on a regular basis,” Brown said.
In a follow-up question, The Center Square asked Brown if he felt it was appropriate that his office and specifically Solicitor General Noah Purcell urged the prime sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, to attach a clause blocking a referendum and bypassing a vote of the people.
“That’s just wrong,” Brown said. “If you look at the email communications my solicitor general and people in the office were talking about how this because it’s raising revenue couldn’t go to referendum. So, we weren’t trying to bypass voters. We weren’t advising the legislature on how to do that. We were explaining what the state of the law is. So, the framing of the question and the reporting is just incorrect.”
As reported by The Center Square, former State Attorney General Rob McKenna, who is one of the lead attorneys on the legal challenge against the income tax, says the AGO’s involvement in crafting the legislation was clearly intended to not only overturn nearly a century’s worth of legal precedent banning a progressive income tax, but prevent voters from weighing in via a referendum.
“I had not seen before this week an example of the AG’s office actively collaborating with a legislative sponsor on how to draft a bill that could get the get the Constitution basically reinterpreted, and 95 years of precedent overturned,” McKenna told The Center Square in an interview last week.
