Contact:
PO Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
E-mail
The Solicitor General’s Office is comprised of 7 attorneys and 5 professional staff. The office coordinates the involvement of the Attorney General’s Office in cases before the United States Supreme Court, assists the AGO in preparing and presenting appellate cases in state and federal courts, directly handles select appeals, and coordinates the AGO’s involvement with amicus curiae “Friend of the Court” briefs. The SGO also is responsible for preparing and issuing Attorney General Opinions to officials statutorily authorized to request them, and works in conjunction with the Attorney General Opinions Committee to accomplish this responsibility.
Back to top
The Solicitor General’s Office carries out the Attorney General’s duties to prepare ballot titles and explanatory statements for ballot measures, and represents the state in litigation involving the powers of initiative and referendum. The Solicitor General’s Office serves as counsel to the Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor and Administrative Office of the Courts. The Solicitor General serves as the chair of the AGO Ethics Committee, and the SGO plays a role in coordinating legal advice on issues of statewide significance.
Back to top
United States Supreme Court
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party: In March 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Washington’s top-two primary election for candidates for partisan congressional, state, and county offices, against a facial First Amendment challenge in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. Under the top-two system, which the people enacted through Initiative 872, candidates may state their preference for a political party, or not state a preference, on the ballot. Voters may choose any candidate for a particular office regardless of the candidate’s party preference, and the top two vote getters advance to the general election. The Supreme Court held that Initiative 872 does not violate the First Amendment rights of the political parties because the initiative does not compel political parties to associate with or endorse candidates, and there was no basis for presuming that candidates’ party-preference designations would confuse voters. Attorney General McKenna argued the case before the high court.
Case Pending In The United States Supreme Court
Waddington v. Sarausad: In March 2008, the Supreme Court granted Washington’s Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari in Waddington v. Sarausad, Cesar Sarausad was the driver in a drive by shooting at Ballard High School. He was convicted of second degree murder and second degree attempted murder as the accomplice of the individual who fired the shots. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Sarausad’s conviction on the basis of its conclusion that Washington’s accomplice liability jury instruction was ambiguous and relieved the state of its burden of proof with regard to an element of the crime. The Supreme Court and will hear oral argument in the case on October 15, 2008
Washington Supreme Court Victories
King v. King: The Attorney General’s Office successfully defended against a claim that the federal and state constitutions require the public to fund counsel for indigent parents in divorce proceedings that involve child custody. The Supreme Court held that in such actions, the State simply provides a judicial forum for resolving a private dispute, and is not constitutionally compelled to pay for representation of indigent parties to the litigation.
Washington State Farm Bureau Federation v. Gregoire: The Washington Supreme Court upheld the authority of the State Legislature to enact laws relating to the state expenditure limit, and rejected a challenge to liquor and tobacco tax increases. The Court concluded that the tobacco and liquor taxes did not raise revenue in excess of the state spending limit as established by the Legislature, and for that reason, the tax increases did not have to be approved by a vote of the people.
Case Pending in the Ninth Circuit
Farrakhan v. Washington: The Washington Constitution provides that convicted felons lose the right to vote until they complete all terms of their criminal sentences. A group of convicted felons brought this action in federal court, claiming that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits Washington from disenfranchising felons. The State successfully defended its felon disenfranchisement provisions in the district court, and currently awaits a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Back to top