Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has suffered yet another defeat, resulting in a loss for both him and the taxpayers.
Idaho Fourth District Court Judge Jason Scott ruled on Tuesday that the State Board of Education is entitled to $242,726 in costs and attorney fees. This amount is awarded to the State Board of Education as compensation for defending itself against an open-meeting lawsuit brought by Labrador. The lawsuit was filed in relation to the University of Phoenix purchase.
We strongly oppose the University of Phoenix deal and have urged the State Board of Education to terminate it.
The State Board of Education’s lack of transparency in acquiring the University of Phoenix is deeply concerning. It is evident that there was insufficient public discussion and deliberation regarding this purchase.
Labrador made a mistake by suing his own client. Although the board should have engaged in more public debate prior to reaching a decision, they were within their rights under the state’s open meetings laws to hold closed-door meetings in order to discuss the details of the deal and address concerns about potential competing bids, which could have resulted in higher costs for taxpayers.
Labrador compounded the issue by engaging in a deceptive tactic. He had a confidential discussion with Board of Education officials, who believed they were conversing with Labrador in his capacity as the board’s attorney. However, Labrador then unexpectedly revealed his intention to sue the board, leaving the officials taken aback.
The outcome of Labrador’s misstep, whether it was intentional or due to incompetence, ultimately resulted in a loss.
It’s important to mention that the ruling in question has been appealed by Labrador and is currently pending review by the Idaho Supreme Court. It’s worth noting that the court costs are also open to appeal in this case.
However, this is just one more loss for Labrador, who has already faced numerous legal defeats. Some of these cases are still in the process of being appealed to higher courts.
In November, the special prosecutor assigned to the case withdrew the lawsuit after being disqualified from litigating a case against another client of the attorney general’s, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, regarding childhood education grants.
According to the Idaho Capital Sun, Health and Welfare initially sought $186,000 in attorney costs from the attorney general’s office. However, they were eventually ordered to pay only $9,500.
In November, the state Controller’s Office discovered that Labrador had made a mistake in paying attorney Mitch Toryanski $16,000 in overtime wages.
L is an abbreviation for “liter,” which is a unit of volume measurement.
The Idaho Supreme Court intervened and instructed Labrador to revise the title of the ranked-choice voting ballot initiative. The court’s decision was based on the concern that Labrador’s original titles could potentially bias public opinion against the measure.
Labrador’s bias against the initiative was evident from the beginning. He wasted no time in taking to social media to express his disdain for it, labeling it as one of the “bad ideas” originating from liberal outside groups.
The justices easily detected the flaw in the argument.
L. Another.
When Labrador campaigned for attorney general in the previous election, he promised to advocate for the interests of the taxpayers. However, it has become apparent that his true priority is his own personal gain. Unfortunately, as taxpayers, we are the ones bearing the financial burden of his actions.
In addition to his commitment to upholding Idaho values, he frequently emphasizes this aspect in his news releases. However, it would be more productive for him to focus less on his perception of Idaho values and instead prioritize his role as a lawmaker. By devoting more time and attention to his responsibilities, he may achieve a higher success rate in his legal cases.
Instead of getting involved in lawsuits, briefs, and complaints from other states, he should focus more on the issues that are impacting Idaho.
Instead, he is engaging in conflicts with Idaho agencies and consistently ending up on the losing side.
Labrador emerged victorious, defeating the incumbent Lawrence Wasden in a closely contested race. Wasden had previously described the role of the attorney general as merely calling balls and strikes, a viewpoint that Labrador strongly disagreed with. Labrador believed that the attorney general should be more proactive and assertive, willing to throw a curveball every now and then, as one legislator aptly expressed.
Idaho taxpayers are unfortunately bearing the brunt of Labrador’s frequent and misguided actions.
