By Raúl Labrador
Dear Friends,
I know it will come as no surprise to the readers of the Labrador Letter that I’m not particularly fond of the media. Some reporters in Idaho try to be fair but most newspaper editorial boards and columnists are nothing short of left wing idealogues. They persistently show their editorial bias in the way they cover people they like compared to people they don’t like. For this reason, I typically ignore attacks from these editorialists and opinion writers who continuously misstate, misconstrue, and mischaracterize everything that happens in my office. As I often say, they have an unhealthy obsession with me. I call it Labrador Derangement Syndrome.
But an op-ed in the Idaho Statesman from a couple weeks ago really crossed a line for me regarding our office’s work in litigation before the Idaho Supreme Court so I decided to respond with an op-ed of my own. It’s a reasonable request to ask a paper to run a response to their attacks after they have savaged someone, and most credible media news sources see the benefit and fairness of a balanced approach. In that spirit, we wrote a piece responding to the Statesman’s childish attacks and, for the last two weeks, my communications director has been engaged in a ridiculous back-and-forth with the Idaho Statesman editors, as they nit-picked our writing and felt compelled to fact-check my opinion.
Yes, you read that right, they fact-checked my opinion about their newspaper, and asked me to change statements about how I felt about their scurrilous attacks. In fairness, they did point out a portion where I had criticized their reporting instead of just the headlines and opinions written by the editorial board. That was legitimate, as their reporters regularly tell us they have nothing to do with the often-misleading headlines that are chosen for their stories. We offered them some edits reflecting that difference, and focusing our op-ed on their headlines, their editorial attacks, and their distortion of facts.
However, I refused to delete a paragraph where I mentioned the recent decay in the public trust towards the media. One doesn’t have to go far to see why trust in the media is at an all-time low. A simple Google search will produce quite a volume of supporting data showing these abysmal numbers. We said quite plainly that the Statesman was working hard to earn that low reputation with the public. At least that’s my opinion.
But in the end, the truth was too much for them to bear. They refused to print my op-ed. Apparently, they can dish it out, but they sure can’t take it.
So for this week’s Labrador Letter, I offer you the opinion piece the Idaho Statesman refused to print:
The Misinformation Campaign of the Idaho Statesman
As the Attorney General for the State of Idaho, I am first and foremost the people’s lawyer. Based only on media reports, it is hard for many Idahoans to get a fair sense of the work my office is doing on their behalf. So let me tell you about some of my office’s recent work that impacts everyday Idahoans.
Last week, the Idaho Supreme Court issued two important opinions: 1) Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries, et al., and 2) Hawkins Companies, LLC v. State of Idaho, et al. My office was involved in both of these matters. But if your only source of information on these important cases was the Idaho Statesman, especially its editorial page, you would be misinformed.
In the Labrador decision, the Idaho Statesman headline read, “AG Labrador misunderstands Idaho Supreme Court role, justices say.” After reading that misleading headline, you would think that the suit was dismissed quickly because it was meritless. Only, that’s not what the Court did.
The Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds that had nothing to do with the merits of the claims. In fact, the Court stressed the seriousness of the allegations that the signatures were fraudulently collected and directed that they be addressed in the district court first. The Court also restated that it had previously admonished the initiative organizer’s the use of the term “open primary” was inaccurate, and that “an ‘open primary’ means something significantly different than what is proposed by the Initiative.”
Like the Supreme Court, I consider any misrepresentations related to the ballot initiative process very serious. Not only did the initiative proponents continue to use the misleading “open primary” slogan, but they intentionally concealed that the initiative includes ranked-choice voting, which is so unpopular opposed by a majority of Idahoans. So, as suggested by the Court, my office refiled the lawsuit in the district court. As the people’s lawyer, I will not neglect my duty to preserve and protect the integrity of the initiative process.
In the Hawkins case, the Statesman’s headline read, “Idaho Supreme Court issues surprise ruling in sale of Boise’s ITD campus to developers.” But again, that’s not what happened at all. In fact, there was no surprise whatsoever. The Idaho Supreme Court agreed with the arguments made in the legal briefs filed by our office.
Although the Statesman doesn’t explain the importance of the decision for everyday Idahoans, allow me to do so. Based on the good work of my attorneys, the Court dismissed the case without oral argument and agreed with our claim that the developer did not have a legally enforceable right to purchase the ITD Campus. The laws of the State of Idaho at issue in the case give no one the right to claim entitlement to state property, and I was proud to ensure that Idaho’s laws were evenly enforced. The Court’s opinion is a clear and decisive victory for the people of Idaho.
But the most egregious example of media bias was the Statesman’s latest editorial discussing the Supreme Court decision regarding which reads more like a hit piece than actual or serious analysis. Of course, they didn’t care to tell their readers the truth about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the initiative and how the Court acknowledged that its previous statements suggested filing in the Supreme Court was appropriate. The Statesman also apparently didn’t think it relevant to tell their readers about the Court’s determination that serious issues were raised by my petition and that those serious matters can be addressed in the district court.
The Statesman can criticize me all they want. But their personal attacks will not deter me from doing my job. In fact, I am becoming increasingly amused by the lengths to which the media will go to detract from the work my office does. Poll after poll shows that Americans’ trust in the media has plummeted and unfortunately the Idaho Statesman seems to be working hard to earn those poor ratings.
I could not be more proud of the work my attorneys do for the people of Idaho. This is just a glimpse at the fight we are waging for you. And we will not be deterred in our work—no matter the headlines.
Best regards,
About Raúl Labrador
Raúl Labrador is the 33rd Attorney General of Idaho. The Office of the Attorney General provides legal representation for the State of Idaho. This representation is furnished to state agencies, offices and boards in the furtherance of the state's legal interests. The office is part of state government’s executive branch and its duties are laid out in the Idaho Constitution.
