Rantz: AG Bob Ferguson kept secret his donor’s lawsuit against initiatives in ‘highly unusual’ deceit

Attorney General Bob Ferguson secretly handled two lawsuits aimed at effectively nullifying popular, voter-backed initiatives slated for the November ballot. The voters, the initiative organizers and the media were deliberately kept in the dark by Ferguson.

In fact, Ferguson himself acknowledged in court documents that these interested parties were intentionally excluded from being informed.

In these cases, two far-left activist groups and four voters challenged the signature verification process in an attempt to prevent the initiatives from reaching the ballot. They filed lawsuits against Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. However, the initiative’s sponsors, Let’s Go Washington and its founder Brian Heywood, along with State Representative Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen) who supported the initiatives in the legislature, were never notified by Ferguson’s office, which was representing Hobbs in the case. Hobbs’ office also failed to inform the organizers. Both Heywood and Walsh are considered interested parties to the lawsuit, even if they’re not named defendants.

Ferguson should not even have been on the case. As a gubernatorial candidate, he opposes the four initiatives and some of his own campaign donors and supporters were the plaintiffs in the case. Even a first-year law student or a casual fan of Judge Judy would know Ferguson should have recused himself from these cases over, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict.

Adding to the controversy, Ferguson did not alert Heywood or the millions of voters potentially disenfranchised by the lawsuits. Heywood only learned of the case mere hours before a Friday Supreme Court hearing when a media member stumbled upon the information.

Former Attorney General Rob McKenna called Ferguson’s decision “highly unusual.”

More from Jason Rantz: King County Public Defender director aims to stop many prosecutions, pay criminals instead

Bob Ferguson was quiet as his wealthy supporters tried to disenfranchise Washington voters in initiatives attack

Plaintiffs in both initiatives cases are Bob Ferguson supporters.

Defend Washington and voters Susan Young and Sharon Chen sued Hobbs, challenged the certification of signatures on five of the six voter initiative petitions the state legislature reviewed at the time. Defend Washington is a far-left organization principally funded by Ferguson supporters and donors, including Civic Ventures founder Nick Hanauer.

Washington Conservation Action Education Fund (WCAEF) and voters Tony Usibelli and Nancy Henderson asked the court to stop I-2066 (which prevents the state from banning the use of natural gas) signatures from being verified. Usibelli and Henderson are listed as Ferguson campaign donors by the Washington Public Disclosure Commission and the WCAEF endorsed Ferguson’s campaign.

The Supreme Court rejected the arguments and allowed the initiatives to proceed, effectively blocking Ferguson’s wealthy donors and supporters from disenfranchising Washington voters.

Ironically, while Hanauer was attempting to prevent Washingtonians from voting on these initiatives —largely because polling indicates they would reverse the Democratic legislative agenda — he continues to accuse Republicans of “ending democracy.”

Jason Rantz Exclusive: Secretary of State says AG Bob Ferguson demanded he break law in vulgar tirade

You won’t believe Bob Ferguson’s excuse for hiding a lawsuit he shouldn’t have touched

It’s difficult to recall another instance where the Attorney General’s Office chose not to notify interested parties in cases it was handling. His office did not provide examples when asked by “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. Yet, Ferguson defended his actions.

Though he has not explained why he kept the cases hidden from those involved, he went as far as to blame the interested parties for not being aware of the case.

On X, responding to criticism from his Republican gubernatorial challenger Dave Reichert, Ferguson misleadingly claimed the cases were “public every step of the way” and pointed out that “Supreme Court dockets are published.” This post on the initiatives was sent from the personal Bob Ferguson account. He posted another statement on the initiatives cases from his Attorney General Bob Ferguson account.

Is Ferguson seriously suggesting that the public should routinely check court dockets — not just Supreme Court dockets, but also lower courts where these cases initially appeared — to see if they might be involved in a lawsuit they had no idea would be filed? That’s his defense?

In a July filing, the Attorney General’s office even admitted that the interested parties weren’t notified. They argued against an injunction, stating it “would affect voters throughout the state. At a minimum, reasonable notice should require notice to the sponsor of the initiatives that the injunctive relief would exclude from the ballot.” Despite this, Ferguson failed to follow his own advice and provided no notice to the interested parties.

More from Jason Rantz: Panic as Seattle restaurants may not survive massive minimum wage shift

‘Highly unusual’ says former AG Rob McKenna

A spokesperson for Bob Ferguson’s Office attempted to justify the decision to keep the initiatives cases secret, stating, “The challenge was related to the Secretary of State’s verification of the signatures on six initiatives. The challenge was not related to the substance of the initiatives,” during an interview on “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH.

This explanation is a blatant display of bad faith. Whether the challenge was related to the substance of the initiatives is irrelevant. The core issue is the failure to notify the interested parties — those directly impacted by the outcome of the lawsuit — regardless of the specific legal grounds of the challenge.

“Typically, the AG’s office would notify the party at interest, which would be the sponsor of the initiative, so that they would have an opportunity to come in and attempt to intervene,” former AG Rob McKenna told “The Jason Rantz Show” on KTTH. “Become an intervener defendant and co-defend the process with the Attorney General’s Office. So I think this is highly unusual.”

These cases centered on the signature verification process, making it clear that the signature gatherers had a vested interest, even if the challenge wasn’t about the substance of the initiatives.

“Generally, the party bringing the motion has the responsibility to notify the relevant parties. Court rules require petitioners to take reasonable steps to ‘give notice to persons who would be affected by the ruling sought.’ We argued strongly that by not notifying the initiative sponsors, the petitioners failed to meet this reasonable requirement,” the spokesperson continued.

This statement is highly misleading.

While it’s true that the plaintiffs should have notified the interested parties, the Attorney General’s Office should have done so as well, especially since Ferguson knew that the interested parties weren’t informed. Former Attorney General Rob McKenna expressed that he couldn’t think of any situation where the AG’s office would choose not to notify the interested parties.

“Obviously, you have an interested party in the in the form of the initiative sponsors, and they should be given an opportunity,” McKenna explained. “It should have been given notice. The Attorney General’s office should have notified the initiative sponsors, and I think the Secretary of State should have notified them as well.”

More from Jason Rantz: Prominent Seattle business leaders fed up with crime plaguing city as major Starbucks shuts down for safety

Why did Bob Ferguson keep the two initiatives cases a secret? Politics

McKenna said notifying Let’s Go Washington’s Brian Heywood and Rep. Jim Walsh would have been “common sense,” but he notes why this case may have been different for Ferguson and the plaintiffs.

“What do all these people have in common? Right? They’re not supporters of the initiative,” McKenna said. “They are Democrats who are worried about blowback from the initiative opponents.”

Ferguson likely kept the lawsuits under wraps because he knew they would attract significant media attention.

As the Democratic candidate for governor, he couldn’t risk being seen defending initiatives that, while popular among voters, are strongly opposed by the Democratic base and the party’s biggest donors. Even though his role was technically to defend Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and the signature verification process, Ferguson couldn’t afford to alienate his political allies. Therefore, he likely decided that it was worth keeping the cases hidden from the interested parties.

What’s more troubling — and deeply unethical — is that if the plaintiffs had succeeded in obtaining an injunction, the interested parties would have been blindsided and unable to mount a defense. By effectively preventing them from joining as co-defendants, Ferguson denied them the opportunity to challenge the case against their initiatives.

Ethics? What ethics?

The fact that the Supreme Court ruled against Ferguson’s supporters is, according to Ferguson’s reasoning, supposed to justify his decision to stay on the case. However, this outcome merely highlights his ethical shortcomings.

Ferguson is obligated to provide the best possible defense, even when he foolishly chooses to remain involved in a case he should have recused himself from.

Former Attorney General Rob McKenna argued that Ferguson should have “personally recused” himself from the case. McKenna notes that while the Attorney General’s office has a division that represents the Secretary of State, Ferguson could have been walled off from the case entirely.

Ferguson’s decision to stay involved and keep the case hidden from interested parties is part of a troubling pattern. He has a history of withholding information from those who have a right to know, and this latest incident is just another example of his disregard for ethical standards.

Bob Ferguson and his billionaire friends secretly went to the State Supreme Court to try to invalidate the 4 voter backed ballot initiatives designed to lower taxes & costs. Luckily the Court told him no.

How long do you think the initiatives will last under a Gov. Bob…

— Travis Couture (@TravisSCouture) August 10, 2024

‘Egregious’ scandal when Ferguson’s office withheld documents from plaintiff

Due to unethical practices, Ferguson’s office and the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) were slapped with over $200,000 in fines for deliberately withholding documents in a lawsuit. The judge overseeing the case described their conduct as “egregious.”

The case involved a developmentally disabled adult who, through her guardian, sued the state for negligence, alleging that DSHS failed to properly investigate reports of abuse and neglect in the adult home where she was placed. Ferguson’s office represented DSHS in the lawsuit.

King County Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan found that during the discovery process, Ferguson’s office was over a year late in producing crucial documents to the plaintiff. These documents, which could have supported the plaintiff’s case, were discovered just hours after an initial search in December 2021. However, they weren’t handed over to Ferguson’s office until June 2022, when DSHS claims the documents were first requested.

Shockingly, these documents were not provided to the plaintiff until December 2022. At that time, the state also admitted to withholding over 100,000 additional documents. This pattern of delay and withholding critical information underlines a serious breach of ethical standards.

Ferguson tried to deflect blame then, too

The judge issued a scathing sanction against Ferguson’s office, stating there was “no reasonable justification or excuse” for their actions.

“It is undisputed that these documents were responsive to [the] plaintiff’s discovery requests, yet no one at DSHS or the AGO made any attempt to ensure that its discovery obligations were timely complied with,” the judge concluded. “The Court is at a complete loss to understand how a large State agency, and the largest law firm in the State, could be so cavalier with respect to their discovery obligations and how such a large amount of responsive material could be overlooked and simply ignored for six months.”

Ferguson, rather than taking responsibility for his office’s failure to turn over legally required documents, attempted to shift the blame onto the plaintiff.

Judge Ryan noted that “rather than take responsibility … the AGO [Attorney General’s Office] instead tries to point the finger at [the] plaintiff and her counsel.” He also noted that Ferguson’s office alleged the plaintiff wasn’t forthcoming with her discovery, even though the office didn’t issue any discovery requests to her.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz