GOP state AGs seen putting credibility at risk over election

By supporting efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, most of the nation’s Republican state attorneys general are at risk of undermining their offices’ long-held special status in federal courts.

In December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed legal papers attempting to overturn the results of the presidential election based on claims of election fraud in four states that voted for President-elect Joe Biden. The Republican attorneys general for 17 other states made legal filings supporting his effort, which was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

More recently, an association that is affiliated with their political arm, the Republican Attorneys General Association, became entangled in the Jan. 6 rally by President Donald Trump that preceded the violent insurrection against the U.S. Capitol. That group, the Rule of Law Defense Fund, helped pay for promotional efforts to get people to attend Trump’s rally. The controversy prompted the attorneys general association’s executive director, Adam Piper, to resign.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, blasted the Republican attorneys general who have continued to support Trump’s attempts to overturn the election, even as he and his allies have lost case after case in court. Even Trump’s former U.S. attorney general, William Barr, said the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread fraud that would have altered the outcome of the presidential election.

“There have been a number of Republican AGs who have gone too far and have stepped outside of their role, and who have deviated from the obligation to adhere to the rule of law,” she said, characterizing their conduct as “un-American and incredibly destructive.”

Some legal experts said the overt political involvement by the Republican attorneys general could have a lasting effect on how judges view legal actions their offices bring.

“States occupy a unique position and an important position” in the courts, said Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist who studies attorneys general. “If it turns out that AGs are no different from another politician or another interest group just looking for an angle trying to get into the courts, the courts could revisit special solicitude.”

The term “special solitude” refers to a state’s ability to unilaterally weigh in on any federal lawsuit, giving attorneys general and their states a say in a wide variety of issues.

Attorneys general are elected to office in most states and frequently use the job as a platform to run for governor or the U.S. Senate. Their offices serve as the legal arm of state governments, and they often band together — almost always with AGs of their own party — to challenge federal policy.

They also file claims on behalf of their state’s residents over consumer affairs and antitrust matters. Every state’s AG’s office, for example, has sued companies over the toll of the opioids crisis.

Most attorneys general also are the top law enforcement officers in their state, prosecuting criminal cases and upholding justice.

Greg Zoeller, a Republican and former Indiana attorney general, said attorneys general could lose the right to file “friend-of-the-court” briefs in any federal case without permission because of the activities of the Republican AGs in support of Trump’s election claims.

But he said the work of prosecuting crimes and protecting consumers is handled mostly by career government lawyers who are not focused on political cases.

“You can still have a very strong law office that represents the best interest of the state, the people, when it comes to consumer protection issues,” he said.

The Republican Attorneys General Association and its counterpart group for Democrats launched two decades ago. The groups are major independent spenders in AG races, pouring money — much of it raised from corporations — into ads attacking the other side.

The Republican group has spent $15 million and contributed $50 million to other political entities over the past decade, according to data compiled by the National Institute on Money in Politics. The Democratic group has spent less, but has recently closed the gap.