>>> WELCOME TO THE IDAHO
DEBATES, A LOOK AT THE

CANDIDATES ON THE 2014
PRIMARY BALLOT.

THE IDAHO DEBATES IS A
COLLABORATIVE PROJECT OF THE

IDAHO PRESS CLUB, THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS OF IDAHO, AND

IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION.

THE IDAHO DEDATES ARE MADE
POSSIBLE BY BOISE STATE

UNIVERSITY, COMMITTED TO
PUBLIC SERVICE IN OUR

COMMUNITY AND THE STATE OF
IDAHO FOR MORE THAN 80 YEARS.

OFFERING UNDERGRADUATE AND
GRADUATE DEGREES IN PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC POLICY,
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, COMMUNITY

AND REGIONAL PLANNING,
ECONOMICS AND MORE.

THE IDAHO DEBATES ARE ALSO
BROUGHT TO YOU BY

YOUR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE IDAHO

PUBLIC TELEVISION ENDOWMENT.

THANK YOU.

>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE
IDAHO DEBATES, LIVE FROM

IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION.

WE'LL HAVE EIGHT MORE DEBATES
OVER THE NEXT 14 DAYS, BUT

TONIGHT, THE CANDIDATES VYING
TO BE THE STATE'S CHIEF LEGAL

OFFICER TAKE THE STAGE TO ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE.

IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING,
THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL PROVIDES LEGAL
REPRESENTATION TO THE STATE'S

AGENCIES.

THEY OFFER LEGAL OPINIONS TO
THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE, AND

THEY DEFEND IDAHO'S LAWS IN
COURT.

I WANT TO WELCOME THE TWO
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LAWRENCE
WASDEN, AND CHALLENGER

ATTORNEY CHRIS TROUPIS.

LAWRENCE WASDEN IS IDAHO'S
32nd ATTORNEY GENERAL.

HE IS SERVING HIS 12th TERM
AND IS IDAHO'S LONGEST-SERVING

PERSON IN THIS POSITION.

CHRIS TROUPIS IS AN IDAHO
ATTORNEY WITH OVER 30 YEARS

PRACTICING LAW.

HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN MANY
HIGH-PROFILE CASES, INCLUDING

THE IDAHO REPUBLICAN PARTY'S
CHALLENGE TO THE PRIMARY

RULES, OR THE CLOSED PRIMARY
CASE.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR
PANEL OF REPORTERS WHO WILL

ASK THE CANDIDATES QUESTIONS.

EMILEE RITTER SAUNDERS, FROM
BOISE STATE PUBLIC RADIO.

REBECCA BOONE FROM THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS, AND OUR

VERY OWN POLITICAL ANALYST,
DR. JIM WEATHERBY.

I'M AARON KUNZ COHOST OF
"IDAHO REPORTS" HERE ON

IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION.

I'LL MODERATE TONIGHT'S
DEBATE AND TRY TO MAKE SURE

BOTH CANDIDATES GET EQUAL TIME
AND STAY ON POINT.

TO HELP ME AND TO REMIND THE
CANDIDATES HOW LONG THEY'VE

BEEN TALKING IS VOLUNTEER
TIMEKEEPER FROM THE LEAGUE OF

WOMEN VOTERS, ELINOR CHEHEY.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

WE'VE ENCOURAGED THE CANDIDATES
TO ENGAGE ON THE ISSUES.

I'M LESS INTERESTED IN
ENFORCING A RIGID FORMULA THAN

IN ALLOWING AN INTELLIGENT AND
ENLIGHTENING DISCUSSION THAT

HELPS YOU, THE VOTER, CAST A
MORE INFORMED BALLOT.

EACH CANDIDATE WILL BE GIVEN
TWO MINUTES FOR OPENING

COMMENTS AND TWO MINUTES FOR
CLOSING.

WE FLIPPED A COIN A FEW
MINUTES AGO TO SEE WHO WOULD

GO FIRST.

IT WILL BE CHRIS TROUPIS.

THEIR FIRST QUESTION.

>> ARE WE DOING OPENING
STATEMENTS FIRST.

>> THANK YOU FOR REMINDING
ABOUT THAT.

EACH CANDIDATE TWO MINUTES FOR
OPENING STATEMENTS.

MR. TROUPIS, YOU ARE FIRST.

>> THANK YOU, AARON, AND THANK
YOU LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND

IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY.

WE KNOW THE POWER OF POLITICAL
OFFICE CAN BE SO IMMENSE AND

INTOXICATING THAT THERE IS A
GREAT DANGER OF BEING CAPTURED

BY IT.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS HELD
PUBLIC OFFICE FOR OVER A

QUARTER CENTURY, EMPLOYED IN
THAT OFFICE SINCE PRESIDENT

REAGAN AND -- EVEN THOUGH
MR. WASDEN IS A GOOD MAN, HE

HAS LOST HIS WAY.

PERHAPS DECADES AGO HE HAD THE
RIGHT VISION.

RECENT ACTIONS SHOW HE HAS BEEN
CAPTURED BY THE IMMENSE POWER

OF OFFICE.

TIME AND AGAIN HE HAS CHOSEN TO
SIDE WITH THE GOVERNMENT RATHER

THAN THE PEOPLE.

FOR EXAMPLE, ONE, HE GAVE UP
THE FIGHT AGAINST OBAMA CARE.

TWO, HE ADVISED THE STATE LAND
BOARD TO COMPETE WITH PRIVATE

BUSINESS.

THREE, HE REFUSED TO DEFEND AN
IDAHO FAMILY FROM THE EPA.

FOUR, HE WILL NOT PURSUE
RECOVERY OF OUR PUBLIC LANDS.

AND, FIVE, HE ALMOST
SURRENDERED OUR SECOND

AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY ARGUING
THERE SIMPLY IS NO INDIVIDUAL

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND

QUOTE STATES CAN ACT
AGGRESSIVELY TO RESTRICT GUN

ACCESS.

OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST
CHOOSE THE PEOPLE OVER

GOVERNMENT.

HE MUST BE THE PEOPLE'S LAWYER
AND THE PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE.

IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE.

AND THAT'S WHY I AM RUNNING FOR
THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NOW, MR. WASDEN, TWO MINUTES
FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.

>> THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS LAWRENCE WASDEN, I'M
THE IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL.

WHEN I RAN FOR THIS OFFICE 12
YEARS AGO, I SET UP FIVE THINGS

THAT I WOULD TRY TO ACCOMPLISH.

FIRST OF ALL, FIRM AND FAIR
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, WHICH WE

HAVE SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED
NUMEROUS PUBLIC -- PUBLIC

CORRUPTION CASES.

ALSO TO PROTECT IDAHO'S
SOVEREIGNTY AND WATER.

WE HAVE NEARLY COMPLETED THE
SNAKE RIVER BASIN -- I HAVE

DEFENDED IDAHO'S SOVEREIGNTY
REPEATEDLY.

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CASE
AMONG THEM.

THIRD, TO PROTECT IDAHO'S
CONSUMERS FROM FRAUD.

WE HAVE RECOVERED MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS FOR IDAHO CONSUMERS

REPEATEDLY THROUGHOUT THAT TIME
PERIOD.

FOUR, TO EXERCISE WISE
STEWARDSHIP ON ENDOWMENT LANDS

TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM LONG TERM
FINANCIAL RETURN AS REQUIRED BY

OUR CONSTITUTION, PUTTING US IN
COMPETITION IN THE PRIVATE

MARKETPLACE.

AND FIVE, ENSURE JUSTICE FOR
ALL IDAHOANS.

ONE OF THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT I HAVE IS

TO DEPEND OUR CONSTITUTION --
DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION.

IN THE -- OUR CITIZENS HAVE
CHOSE INTO DEFINE MARRIAGE.

IT IS MY DUTY AND MY OBLIGATION
TO PRESENT THAT MATTER IN COURT

AND ALLOW THE COURT TO MAKE
THAT DETERMINATION.

I WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT
CHILDREN AS I HAVE DONE SO IN

THE PAST WITH THE PROTECT TEENS
PROGRAM.

IT IS MY OBLIGATION TO FULFILL
MY OATH, TO UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION.

SO, I WILL -- AT THIS STAGE ASK
YOU ALREADY FOR MY -- A -- YOUR

VOTE ON MAY 20th.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. WASDEN.

AND IT IS NOW TIME FOR THE
QUESTIONS FROM OUR REPORTER

PANEL.

AND OUR FIRST QUESTION GOES TO
EMILEE --

>> WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TOP THREE
PRIORITIES FOR ATTORNEY

GENERAL?

>> NUMBER ONE, I WANT TO SEE
OBAMA CARE REPEALED OR

OVERTURNED IN THE STATE OF
IDAHO.

NUMBER TWO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
US RECLAIM OUR PUBLIC LANDS

FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THAT WOULD BOOST IDAHO'S
ECONOMY AND PROVIDE AN ENGINE

FROM WHICH WE COULD NOT BE 50th
IN THE COUNTRY IN PER CAPITA

INCOME, BUT WE COULD HAVE
TIMBER JOBS, WE COULD HAVE

HIGH-PAYING JOBS.

AND, NUMBER THREE, I -- I WOULD
LIKE TO PUSH BACK THE EPA AND

MAKE SURE THAT THE -- THAT THE
EPA IS NOT HARASSING OUR

CITIZENS THAT REGULATIONS ARE
NOT STRANGLING OUR BUSINESSES.

I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE TOP
PRIORITIES.

THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

OFFICE DOES, BUT THOSE THREE
WOULD BE THE FIRST THAT I WOULD

WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.

>> AND THE SAME QUESTIONS FOR
MR. WASDEN.

>> THE TOP THREE ITEMS,
ACTUALLY I'VE NAMED SOME OF

THOSE.

FIRST OF ALL TO DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT,

CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF
MARRIAGE, AND, SECOND, TO

CONTINUE PROTECTING OUR
CHILDREN.

THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT
MATTERS.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN

RAISED WITH REGARD TO OBAMA
CARE.

I WAS AMONG THE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL WHO WITHIN MINUTES OF

THAT LEGISLATION BEING SIGNED
INTO LAW, FILED A LAWSUIT IN

FLORIDA CHALLENGING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMA

CARE.

WE PURSUED THAT ALL OF THE WAY
THROUGH THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT.

I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION A CARD,
CARD NUMBER 13, ISSUED TO ME

WHEN I WAS IN THE LAWYERS
LOUNGE WHEN THAT CASE WAS BEING

ARGUED BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT.

CERTAINLY I CANNOT SAY THAT WE
GAVE UP ON THAT CASE.

IT IS INTERESTING THAT THE
CLAIM IS, WELL, IT SHOULD BE

REPEALED OR OVERTURNED.

WELL, WE LITIGATED THE ISSUE.

AND I HOPE TONIGHT WE CAN TALK
ABOUT THE VARIOUS ISSUES

REGARDING OBAMA CARE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T
REPEAL OBAMA CARE.

THAT'S A FUNCTION PERFORMED BY
CONGRESS.

SO, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU
DON'T RUN FOR CONGRESS.

YOU RUN FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU
UNDERSTAND WITHIN THE CONCEPT

OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT THAT YOU
STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF

WHAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES ARE

AS ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> FOLLOW UP.

I WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH
MR. TROUPIS OFF OF THE OBAMA

CARE COMMENT.

THIS IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AT
THIS POINT.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE THE
DECISION.

AT WHAT POINT DO YOU NO LONGER
PUSH BACK ON OBAMA CARE?

AT WHAT POINT DO YOU ACCEPT
THAT THAT IS THE LAW?

>> I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME
THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.

I THINK I NEED TO.

WHERE MY OPPONENT SAYS HE WAS
ONE OF THE FIRST TO JUMP IN ON

THE LAWSUIT.

THE REASON HE GOT CARD NUMBER
13, THERE WERE AT LEAST 12

OTHER STATES THAT ALREADY FILED
THE LAWSUIT.

IDAHO SIMPLY JOINED INTO THE
LAWSUIT WITH THE OTHERS.

THAT IS WHAT OUR PRESIDENT
REFERS TO AS LEADING FROM

BEHIND.

ONCE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED
ON NARROW GROUNDS THAT OBAMA

CARE WAS NOT AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A PENALTY

BUT A TAX, OUR IDAHO ATTORNEY
GENERAL CEASED TO FIGHT.

IDAHO HEALTH FREEDOM ACT,
INCORPORATED IN THE DUTIES OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OBLIGATED TO SEEK --

OUR IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL
REJECTED THAT AND TOOK NO

ACTION TO -- IN ADDITION, LAST
YEAR I BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST --

I REPRESENTED A CLIENT WHO
WANTED TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES

FOR OPT OUTS TO OBAMA CARE
THROUGH MEDICAL EXPENSE

SHARING.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPPOSED
THAT.

THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO
DECLARED THAT IDAHOANS SHOULD

HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OPT
OUTS TO OBAMA CARE.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES THAT
CAN STILL BE MADE TO OBAMA

CARE.

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF CASES
PENDING ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND I HAVE TO COMPLIMENT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT HE HAS

ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE
HOBBY LOBBY CASE, WHICH IS ONE

OF THOSE IMPORTANT CASES, BUT
APART FROM JOINING IN THOSE

CASES, HE HAS NEVER
INDEPENDENTLY BROUGHT ACTIONS,

AND I BELIEVE THAT UNDER THE
ARTICLE ONE OF THE UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION, AN ACTION
CAN BE BROUGHT THAT THIS IS AN

ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DIRECT TAX, AND ON THOSE

GROUNDS, THE OBAMA CARE CAN BE
OVERTURNED.

AND I STAND CORRECTED WITH
RESPECT TO REPEALING A LAW AND

AGREE WITH MY OPPONENT THAT
THAT WAS SIMPLY A MISNOMER WHEN

I SAID IT.

SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MR. WASDEN.

>> THANK YOU.

FIRST OF ALL, MY OPPONENT
DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND HOW

YOU OBTAIN ONE OF THOSE CARDS.

IT IS NOT BECAUSE WE WERE
NUMBER 12.

WE WERE AMONG THE VERY FIRST.

WE ALL FILED SIMULTANEOUSLY.

THERE WASN'T 12 STATES IN FRONT
OF US.

I OBTAINED THAT CARD BECAUSE I
HAPPEN TO BE ADMITTED TO THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BAR
AND I WAS AT THE LAWYERS LOUNGE

WHEN THE COURTROOM FILLED.

I HAPPENED TO BE THE NUMBER 13
GUY THAT WASN'T ALLOWED INTO

THE COURTROOM, AS SOMEONE WOULD
LEAVE THE COURTROOM, THEY WOULD

GET SOMEBODY FROM THE LAWYER'S
LOUNGE AND YOU COULD GO IN AND

LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 12
STATES BEING IN FRONT OF US.

THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DIRECT
APPORTIONMENT, WHICH HE HAS

SPOKEN ABOUT, WAS ACTUALLY
ANSWERED, IF YOU READ THE

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES, THE

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CASE.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
CHIEF JUSTICE ACTUALLY

ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE IN THAT
CASE AND SAID -- BY THE WAY,

THIS IS NOT A DIRECT TAX.

AND, THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO
APPORTIONMENT.

THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN ARGUED AND
LITIGATED AND LOST.

SO, THERE IS NO MORE -- NO
FURTHER ACTION TO BRING IN THAT

REGARD.

THERE ARE TWO CASES WHO HAVE
RAISED THAT ISSUE.

THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
PHYSICIANS VERSUS SEBELIUS, AND

THE -- ASSOCIATION -- THE D.C.

CIRCUIT SAID THAT THE ISSUE HAS
ESSENTIALLY BEEN CONCEDED AND

THE D.C. CIRCUIT AND THE CASE
OF CECIL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FOR
ARGUMENT ON MAY 8th ON THAT

ISSUE.

EXCUSE ME.

THOSE WERE ON ORIGINATION
ISSUES.

THAT WAS NOT THE APPORTIONMENT.

THE APPORTIONMENT ISSUE HAS
BEEN ARGUED, ADDITIONAL CASE IN

WHICH THE COURT HAS SAID THAT
APPORTIONMENT IS NOT NECESSARY

IN THIS CASE, THAT IT IS NOT A
DIRECT TAX.

I DID WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
MEDICAL EXPENSE ACCOUNT CASE

THAT MY OPPONENT CLAIMS THAT I
OPPOSED IT.

FACT OF THE MATTER IS, A
STATUTORY CLIENT, AGAIN, AS I

MENTIONED, LIMITED
GOVERNMENT -- LEGISLATURE

PASSES A LAW, ATTORNEY GENERAL
YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO

REPRESENT THE CLIENT.

CLIENT MAKES DETERMINATIONS
JUST LIKE IT DOES IN A NORMAL

LEGAL RELATIONSHIP.

THE CLIENT CHOOSES.

I DON'T CHOOSE FOR MY CLIENT.

I DON'T USURP THE AUTHORITY OF
MY CLIENT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE

AND THAT LITIGATION.

THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.

MY OBLIGATION AS THE ATTORNEY
IS TO REPRESENT THAT CLIENT

ZEALOUSLY IN COURT AND THAT'S
PRECISELY WHAT WE DID.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MOVING ON.

OUR NEXT QUESTION FROM REBECCA
BOONE FROM THE ASSOCIATED

PRESS.

>> ONE OF THE DUTIES OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ENSURE THAT

STATE AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS
COMPLY WITH GOVERNMENT

TRANSPARENCY RULES,
SPECIFICALLY OPEN MEETINGS AND

OPEN RECORDS LAW.

AS THE STATE CONTINUES TO
PRIVATIZE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS,

PRISONS, MEDICAID PAYMENTS,
WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE

WHERE PUBLIC COMPANY RECORDS
END AND PRIVATE --

>> THAT IS A CHALLENGING ISSUE,
ONE THAT WE HAVE SEEN ACTION ON

IN RECENT TIMES.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T
SET THE STANDARD.

THAT IS DETERMINED BY THE
LEGISLATURE.

AND EXACTLY WHAT THOSE RECORDS
ARE.

BUT WHAT I HAVE DONE WITH
REGARD TO OPEN MEETINGS AND

PUBLIC RECORDS, AS YOU KNOW, IS
I HAVE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF

TIME INSTRUCTING THE MEDIA, THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS,

STATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND
THE PUBLIC COMMUNITY AT LARGE

ABOUT THE RULES THAT WE LIVE
BY.

IN FACT, WE HAVE MADE 30
PRESENTATIONS OVER THE LAST 10

YEARS THAT ARE THREE HOURS LONG
IN ORDER TO HELP PEOPLE

UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE RULES
ARE.

SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING YOUR
QUESTION, THAT QUESTION HAS TO

BE ANSWERED BY THE -- BY THE
LEGISLATURE, AND MY VIEW OF IT

IS THAT MORE OPENNESS YOU CAN
HAVE, THE BETTER OFF WE ARE,

HENCE MY ACTIVITY TRYING TO
HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND OPEN

MEETING AND PUBLIC RECORDS LAW.

>> MR. TROUPIS.

>> YES, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THE
QUESTION.

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
REQUESTS -- I WAS -- I WAS

TALKING WITH SOMEONE RECENTLY
WHEN I WAS OUT ON THE CAMPAIGN

TRAIL, AND THEY WERE TELLING ME
THAT THEY HAD MADE A SIMPLE

PUBLIC INFORMATIONS REQUEST FOR
EMAIL RECORDS.

WHAT THEY GOT BACK FROM THE
DEPARTMENT WAS A STATEMENT THAT

WOULD IT WOULD COST SOME
$12,000 TO FIND THE EMAILS OVER

A TWO-WEEK PERIOD.

AND I FOUND THAT THAT IS NOT AN
ISOLATED CASE.

SO, IT CONCERNS ME THAT RECORDS
ARE NOT BEING PRODUCED, AND, IN

FACT, IF YOU SAW LAST WEEK, THE
GOVERNOR APPOINTED AN OMBUDSMEN

TO BE SURE THERE WOULD BE MORE
RECORDS DISCLOSURE.

MY CONCERN IS THAT OVER THE
COURSE OF THE LAST DOZEN YEARS,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
HAS A DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

IN EACH OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND

THOSE EXECUTIVE -- THOSE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERALS DETERMINE

WHAT GOES ON WITHIN THOSE
AGENCIES.

IF THE LEGISLATURE ENACTS LAWS,
THOSE AGENCIES CREATE RULES AND

REGULATIONS THAT ARE
INTERPRETED AND IMPLEMENTED BY

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

MY BELIEF IS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE SHOULD BE THE

WATCHDOG OVER THE AGENCIES, NOT
INSIDE THE AGENCIES.

AND ALTHOUGH OUR STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS NOW HAD THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH DEPUTIES
WITHIN THE AGENCIES, I THINK

IDAHO WOULD BE BETTER SERVED IS
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
WORKED TOGETHER, TO MAKE SURE

THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE IS THAT INDEPENDENT

WATCH DOG AND I THINK WE WOULD
HAVE MORE TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE

WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE ON BOTH SIDES.

>> FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

>> MR. TROUPIS, IN 2012, YOU
FOUGHT IN COURT TO KEEP THE

DONORS OF THE --
>> ABSOLUTELY -- YOU SAY IT WAS

IN VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS
LAW, UNDERSTAND, I WAS

REPRESENTING EDUCATION VOTERS
OF IDAHO.

AND IN THAT CASE, THEY SET UP
AN ENTITY WHICH WAS

SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED TO KEEP
THEIR DONORS PRIVATE.

AND, IN FACT, I BELIEVE THAT
SECRETARY AND THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL GOT IT WRONG BECAUSE
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

DECIDED IN THE WASHINGTON GAY
MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CASE THAT

OPPONENTS OF THE INITIATIVE DID
NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE THEIR

SUPPORTERS, THAT THOSE -- THAT
INFORMATION WAS PROTECTED -- IT

WAS A NONPROFIT ENTITY.

I BELIEVE THEY GOT IT WRONG
HERE.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
SPECIFICALLY, WE SAID WE WOULD

BE HAPPY TO DISCLOSE ALL OF
THOSE NAMES IF THEY WOULD

PAY -- IF EVERYONE WAS TREATED
THE SAME WAY.

WE MADE A DEMAND ON THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE

SECRETARY OF STATE TO DISCLOSE,
TO HAVE THE DONORS OF IEA AND

THE NEA AND -- WE GOT NOTHING
BUT LIP SERVICE.

SO, IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS
POLITICALLY, THE CASE WAS

HANDLED ON A POLITICAL BASIS, I
BELIEVE.

AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE
SHOULD HAVE COMPLETELY OPEN AND

TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATIONS.

I BELIEVE THE PUBLIC IS
ENTITLED TO KNOW EVERYTHING

THAT ITS GOVERNMENT IS DOING.

AND I WOULD EASILY BE ABLE TO
COMPLY WITH THAT.

>> AND A FOLLOW-UP MR. WASDEN.

YOU WERE -- YOUR AGENCY -- YOUR
OFFICE REPRESENTED THE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IN A
FIGHT TO KEEP ACCESS TO

EXECUTIONS LIMITED AND MORE
SECRET, WHICH WAS A VIOLATION

OF PREVIOUS CASE RULINGS BY THE
9th CIRCUIT.

SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

CAN YOU FAIRLY ADMINISTER OPEN
RECORDS AND OPEN MEETINGS RULE?

>> I THINK THAT I HAVE AN
ESTABLISHED RECORD AT FAIRLY

ADMINISTERING OPEN MEETING AND
PUBLIC RECORDS.

THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

MATTER IS I HAVE A CLIENT, BY
LAW I HAVE A CLIENT.

THE CLIENT GETS TO MAKE THOSE
CHOICES.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER I
AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH MY

CLIENT.

I AM OBLIGATED BY THE RULES OF
ETHICS TO LITIGATE THE CASE

THAT THEY CHOOSE, NOT THE ONE
THAT I USURP AND CHOOSE.

MY OPPONENTS DEMONSTRATES A
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT

WHAT THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DOES.

BECAUSE WE DO HAVE ATTORNEYS
ASSIGNED TO RESPECTIVE

AGENCIES, BUT THOSE ATTORNEYS
DON'T DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENS IN

THOSE AGENCIES OR THE LAWYER,
MEANING THAT THE AGENCY HAS THE

AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THEM BY
THE CONSTITUTION OR BY THE

STATUTES TO MAKE DECISIONS.

THE JOB OF THE LAWYER IS TO
ADVISE THEM AS TO THE LEGAL

MATTERS AND REPRESENT THEM IN
COURT.

IT IS NOT TO USURP THE
AUTHORITY OF THAT ENTITY.

I'M ELECTED AS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, NOT THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL.

NOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE WANTS
AN INSPECTOR GENERAL, THEY

CERTAINLY CAN PROVIDE ONE.

THAT WOULD THEN BE THE WATCHDOG
OF AGENCIES.

THE LAWYER'S JOB IS TO ADVISE
HIS CLIENT, ALLOW THEM TO MAKE

A CHOICE, AND THEN REPRESENT
THAT CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN

THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

THAT'S THE ETHICAL DUTY THAT
THE LAWYER HAS.

>> ALL RIGHT.

LET'S MOVE ON.

OUR NEXT QUESTION COMES FROM
DR. JIM WEATHERBY.

YOUR QUESTION.

>> MR. TROUPIS, MY QUESTION
RELATES TO YOUR QUALIFICATIONS

FOR THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL.

DO YOU HAVE THE REQUISITE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE TO

RUN THE LARGEST LAW FIRM IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO?

>> YES, I BELIEVE I DO.

AND TO CLARIFY, WHILE MY
OPPONE

OPPONENT HAS SAID THAT I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OFFICE

DOES, I VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND.

COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION AND
OTHER LITIGATION IN FEDERAL AND

STATE COURTS ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY.

I HAVE HANDLED MULTIPLE TEAMS
OF LAWYERS IN COMPLEX BUSINESS

LITIGATION AND SUPERVISED THEM.

IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE
DIVISION CHIEFS OF EACH OF THE

PORTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,

EACH OF THOSE ARE COMPETENT
PROFESSIONALS.

EACH OF THOSE ARE ATTORNEYS IN
THEIR OWN RIGHT WHO HAVE

ADMINISTRATIVE SKILLS AND CAN
MANAGE THEIR STAFF.

THEY HAVE PRIMARY OVERSIGHT,
AND I WOULD HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER

THEM.

I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES --

THAT I COULD EASILY MEET THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES, AND,

IN FACT, I THINK MY DIVERSE
EXPERIENCE IN THE PRIVATE

SECTOR, IN HANDLING A MULTITUDE
OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF LEGAL

PROBLEMS MAKES ME UNIQUELY
CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING AND

DEALING OF EACH OF THOSE
DIVISIONS AND THE SPECIFIC

PROBLEMS AND DEPARTMENTS.

BOOK KEEPING, OTHER -- I HAVE
SYSTEMS IN PLACE AND I WOULDN'T

MAKE A WHOLESALE RENOVATIONS OF
ALL OF THOSE SYSTEMS.

I DON'T THINK THAT IS A
CHALLENGE AT ALL AND I WELCOME

IT.

>> CAN YOU REVISE THE QUESTION
FOR MR. WASDEN, PLEASE?

>> ANOTHER QUESTION, RELATED
QUESTION.

>> OKAY.

>> MR. WASDEN, MR. TROUPIS HAS
CHARGED THAT LONG-TIME SERVICE

IN PUBLIC OFFICE LEADS TO A
NATURAL STAGNATION, AND

DISCONNECT FROM THE PEOPLE.

YOU'VE BEEN THE -- YOU ARE THE
LONGEST SERVING ATTORNEY

GENERAL IN IDAHO HISTORY.

ISN'T THAT A LEGITIMATE
CONCERN?

>> IN MY CASE, NO.

AND THE REASON IS THIS.

I'VE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME
OUT ON THE ROAD ACTUALLY

TALKING TO CITIZENS SO THAT I
DO STAY IN CONTACT WITH THEM.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND
THAT IN A LIMITED GOVERNMENT,

THAT YOU -- YOU STAY WITHIN THE
ROLE THAT YOU HAVE AS ATTORNEY

GENERAL.

I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE COULD
LEGITIMATELY ARGUE THAT I JUST

TOLL THE COMPANY LINE, AND THAT
I AM WILLING TO STEP UP TO THE

PLATE AND SAY YES, NO, AND THIS
IS THE WAY THINGS OUGHT TO BE.

I HAVE DONE THAT MANY TIMES IN
MY CAREER.

WITH REGARD TO THE EDI CASE, IT
IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT

HAPPENED IN THAT CASE.

THAT CASE WAS BROUGHT BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AS A

STATUTORY MATTER.

I REPRESENT THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, AND MR. TROUPIS AND HIS

CLIENT LOST IN DISTRICT COURT.

IT IS NOT THAT WE, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL GOT IT WRONG.

WE PRESENTED IT TO A COURT AND
THE COURT MADE THE DECISION.

AND THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO
REMOVE IT TO FEDERAL COURT

AND -- DISMISSED AS WELL.

FACT OF THE MATTER IS AS A
LAWYER YOU BRING YOUR CLIENT'S

CASE INTO THE COURTROOM, YOU
PRESENT IT TO THE COURT.

THE COURT MAKES ITS
DETERMINATION.

IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT, IT
WOULD BE TO THE COURT, IN

MR. TROUPIS'S MIND GOT IT
WRONG, NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

YES, I DID HAVE THE ABILITY TO
STEP OUT AFTER 12 YEARS OF

SERVICE, TO STILL CONTINUE TO
MEET WITH MY CLIENTS, WHICH I

DO, TO MEET WITH THE PUBLIC,
AND I AM NOT DISCONNECTED IN

ANY WAY.

>> JUST A BRIEF FOLLOW-UP.

MR. TROUPIS, YOU TALK ABOUT
YOUR COLLABORATION EXPERIENCE,

BUT IN TERMS OF THE DAY-TO-DAY
ADMINISTRATION, HOW MANY PEOPLE

HAVE YOU SUPERVISED OR HOW
LARGE IS YOUR LAW FIRM?

>> I'M A SOLE PRACTITIONER.

I PRACTICE ALONE.

I PRACTICE WITH OTHER
ATTORNEYS.

I'M INVOLVED IN SOME
MULTIMILLION DOLLAR LITIGATION

AT PRESENT.

THE CURRENT NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS
ON THE TEAM EXCEEDS 20.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT -- MY
OPPONENT, DID NOT SUPERVISE 112

ATTORNEYS PERSONALLY.

HE HAS A STAFF, A HIGHER --
HIERARCHY -- I CERTAINLY HAVE

NO PROBLEM IN ADMINISTERING THE
SIX DIVISION HEADS AND IN

OVERSEEING THE DAY-TO-DAY
OPERATIONS AND IMPORTANT CASES

THAT ARE BEING HANDLED OUT OF
THAT OFFICE.

I WOULD LIKE TO JUST COMMENT
JUST VERY BRIEFLY WHEN -- MY

OPPONENT WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT
EDI CASE.

MY COMMENT WAS THAT THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT ISSUED A

DECISION DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO
THE DECISION ISSUED IN THE EDI

CASE.

HE DIDN'T GET IT WRONG.

THE POSITION WAS REJECTED BY
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

>> IN TERMS OF YOUR CAREER, HOW
MUCH TIME PRECISELY HAVE YOU

SPENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR?

>> I WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE IN
A FIRM HAMILTON, CLARK,

MICHAELSON, FROM 198 -- 1979,
WOULD HAVE BEEN -- NO, JANUARY

OF '79 OR '80 TO ABOUT --
EXCUSE ME, I GOT THAT WRONG BY

A DECADE.

I GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL IN
1985.

HARD TO PRACTICE LAW IN 1982.

ACTUALLY IN 1987 TO 1989, I WAS
IN PRIVATE PRACTICE WITH

HAMILTON, CLARK, AND MICHAELSON
IN NAMPA.

>> MOVING ON.

>> THIS QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH
RESOURCES WITHIN THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE.

QUESTION IS FOR BOTH OF YOU.

I BELIEVE WE'RE STARTING WITH
MR. -- MR. WASDEN, OKAY.

TURNOVER ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE HAS INCREASED AS LAWYERS

LEAVE STATE GOVERNMENT JOBS TO
EARN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PAY IN

THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

HOW DO YOU RECRUIT AND MAINTAIN
WELL QUALIFIED ATTORNEYS TO

WORK WITHIN YOUR OFFICE?

>> THANK YOU.

THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT
PROBLEM.

IT IS NOT JUST TURNOVER INTO
THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN WHICH

ATTORNEYS FROM MY OFFICE CAN GO
OUT AND DOUBLE THEIR SALARY

OVERNIGHT.

BUT ALSO THE COUNTIES CAN PAY
MORE FOR THEIR LAWYERS THAN WE

DO IN THE STATE OF IDAHO AT THE
STATE LEVEL.

AND THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT I
HAVE REPEATEDLY DISCUSSED WITH

THE JOINT FINANCE AND
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.

IN FACT, I'M THE ONE WHO
BROUGHT THIS ISSUE FORWARD WITH

REGARD TO THE COST OF OUTSIDE
COUNSEL, SAYING THAT WE NEED TO

GET CONTROL OF THAT, HOW WE
DEAL WITH OUR BUDGET AND THE

COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH OUTSIDE
COUNSEL.

I HAVE BROUGHT THIS MATTER
FORWARD.

HOW WE COMPETE WHEN WE TRY TO
FIND PEOPLE WHO REALLY ARE

DEDICATED TO PUBLIC SERVICE.

THEY'RE WILLING TO TAKE A PAY
CUT BECAUSE THEY -- BECAUSE

THEY WANT TO DO PUBLIC SERVICE,
AND WE ALSO AT THE SAME TIME

HAVE TO WORK IN A WAY THAT PAYS
THEM AS MUCH AS WE CAN SO THAT

WE AREN'T TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THEM.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO
MAINTAIN A CADRE OF LAWYERS WHO

HAVE THE EXPERTISE NECESSARY TO
HANDLE SOME OF THE MOST COMPLEX

MATTERS IN THE STATE.

WE HAVE A STAFF OF ABOUT 120
LAWYERS.

JUST UNDER TOTAL COMPLIMENT OF
200.

IT IS THE LARGEST LAW OFFICE IN
THE STATE.

NOT THE SAME THINGS YOU
EXPERIENCED IN AN SO PRACTICE.

AS A MANAGER OF ALL OF THAT, I
KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN SOME

MEASURE WITH CASES AT THE VERY
LOWEST LEVEL.

WE WILL HANDLE 5,000 TO 6,000
MATTERS AND PROCESS AT ANY

GIVEN MOMENT.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW
EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYONE OF

THOSE CASES ALL OF THE TIME.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME I HAVE TO
DEAL WITH THIS ENTIRE SPAN OF

THINGS.

MY OWN EXPERIENCE, I SERVED AS
A -- AS A SUPERVISING DEPUTY,

SERVED AS A CHIEF OF STAFF, AND
ALSO AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

I HAVE A VERY SOUND VIEW OF
WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING.

WHEN I ASK SOMEBODY IN THE
OFFICE TO DO SOMETHING, IT IS

SOMETHING THAT I HAVE DONE
BEFORE.

IT IS NOT LIKE I AM ASKING THEM
TO DO SOMETHING THAT I AM

UNAWARE OF OR DON'T HAVE A
GRASP ABOUT HOW DIFFICULT THAT

MAY BE.

SO, THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS
TRY TO RECRUIT PEOPLE WHO HAVE

A DESIRE TO SERVE IN THE
PUBLIC, AND TRY TO MAKE SURE

THAT WE MAINTAIN THEIR SALARIES
AS HIGH AS WE CAN.

>> MR. TROUPIS.

>> YES, AND I CAN APPRECIATE
WHAT MY OPPONENT HAS SAID.

AND I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH
MOST EVERYTHING THAT HE HAS

SAID.

ONE POINT -- A COUPLE OF POINTS
THAT I WOULD DIFFER ON.

ONE, YOU KNOW, I WOULD BE
RECRUITING SOME PEOPLE WHO I

WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE WOULD BE
CAREER POLITICIANS OR HAVE A

CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE.

I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY
IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

OFFICE, OFFER YOUNG LAWYERS OUT
OF LAW SCHOOL THE OPPORTUNITY

TO ENGAGE IN EXCITING CASES, TO
GIVE US TWO TO FOUR YEARS OF

THEIR TIME TO DEVOTE TO
IMPORTANT ISSUES AND CASES AND

THEN MOVE ON TO THE PRIVATE
SECTOR OR MOVE ON TO OTHER

OFFICES.

AND IN THAT SENSE, I THINK
THERE IS AN UNTAPPED POTENTIAL

IN YOUNG LAWYERS, ESPECIALLY
GIVEN THE FACT THAT MOST

LAWYERS ARE HAVING A DIFFICULT
TIME GETTING JOBS THESE DAYS.

THE SECOND POINT IS THIS.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THIS JOB
STRICTLY FROM THE ASPECT OF IT

BEING AN ADMINISTRATOR,
ADMINISTRATOR OF A LOT OF OTHER

PEOPLE, YOU MISS THE FOREST FOR
THE TREES.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOST
IMPORTANT JOB IS THE DEFENSE OF

THE CONSTITUTION, AS MY
OPPONENT HAS SAID, THE DEFENSE

OF IMPORTANT VALUES THAT
IDAHOANS TREASURE AND CHERISH,

AND THOSE VALUES THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE MUST BE

FOCUSED UPON, AND I THINK THAT
THAT IS WHY I AM UNIQUELY

QUALIFIED FOR THIS JOB, BECAUSE
I HAVE THE PASSION, THE

COMMITMENT AND THE FOCUS ON THE
IMPORTANT ISSUES AND VALUES

THAT CONCERN IDAHOANS.

THOSE THINGS THAT MY OPPONENT
HAS GOTTEN WRONG, AND WHICH HE

HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM THE
PUBLIC.

THINGS LIKE THE EPA.

WHEN A FAMILY UP NORTH ASKED
HIM TO INTERVENE IN A CASE

WHERE THE EPA WAS HARASSING
THEM, AND HE REFUSED EVEN

THOUGH 18 LEGISLATORS ASKED HIM
TO DO SO.

LAND BOARD, COMPETITION WITH
PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

THOSE THINGS I THINK SHOW THAT
WE'VE LOST THE FOREST FOR THE

TREES AND WE NEED TO REFOCUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

>> AND MOVING ON.

NEXT QUESTION FROM REBECCA
BOONE, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR

QUESTION TO MR. TROUPIS.

>> YOU'VE IDENTIFIED
YOURSELF -- TEA PARTY

CANDIDATE, BEING SEEN AS
ALIGNED WITH A SPECIFIC GROUP

CAN SOMETIMES ALIENATE
LAWMAKERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS

OF THAT GROUP AND TRUST IS AN
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT TO A

HEALTHY ATTORNEY CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP.

CAN YOU EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT
THE ENTIRE LEGISLATURE AND THE

NUANCES THAT ARE PRESENT IN
EACH AGENCY?

>> YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO SAY THIS
ABOUT YOUR QUESTION.

I CERTAINLY AM -- I THINK THE
TEA PARTY HAS ADOPTED ME

BECAUSE I HAVE THE SAME VALUES
THAT THEY DO, BUT I DON'T VIEW

MYSELF AS A TEA PARTY
CANDIDATE.

IN FACT, I VIEW MYSELF AS A
MAINSTREAM CANDIDATE.

THE -- TAGGED BY MY OPPONENT AS
BEING A FRINGED MEMBER OF THE

PARTY, ARE THE VIEWS THE ENTIRE
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE HAS

AGREED WITH, TAKING BACK OUR
FEDERAL LANDS FOR THE STATE OF

IDAHO.

HOUSE RESOLUTIONS 21 AND 22
PASSED BY A MAJORITY, ALMOST

EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR
THOSE BILLS.

AND IN ADDITION, THE STATE AND
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY

OVERWHELMINGLY AGREED.

MY OTHER VIEWS ABOUT PUSHING
BACK THE EPA, ABOUT THE LAND

BOARD NOT COMPETING WITH
PRIVATE BUSINESS, THOSE ARE ALL

MAIN STREAM ISSUES, AND AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, I HAVE DONE

WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE FOR
MANY YEARS.

I HAVE PROVIDED THEM MY
ASSISTANCE AND LEGAL ADVICE ON

A NUMBER OF ISSUES.

I HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH
MANY LEGISLATORS, AND I'M A LOT

MORE OPEN-MINDED THAN YOU MIGHT
THINK.

I HAVE HANDLED CASES -- I DID
HANDLE THE CLOSED PRIMARY CASE.

I REPRESENTED RALPH NADER IN
GETTING THE INDEPENDENT

CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT IN
IDAHO.

I HAVE REPRESENTED PEOPLE OF
EVERY WALK OF LIFE AND EVERY

INTEREST GROUP.

AND I WOULD ENSURE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTES

OF IDAHO ARE EQUALLY APPLIED
FOR EVERY PERSON.

AND I KNOW THAT I COULD WORK
EFFECTIVELY WITH OUR ENTIRE

LEGISLATURE.

AND THAT'S DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS
THE REPUBLICANS.

>> RELATED QUESTION.

YOU HAVE HAD A SOMETIMES ROCKY
RELATIONSHIP WITH SOME MEMBERS

OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE TEA
PARTY -- LAWMAKERS, AND SOME OF

THAT HAS BEEN WHEN YOUR OFFICE
HAS ISSUED OPINIONS SAYING THAT

CERTAIN PIECES OF PROPOSED
LEGISLATION WOULDN'T

NECESSARILY APPEAR TO PASS
CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER.

WITH THAT TENSION, CAN YOU
STILL EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT THE

WHOLE OF THE LEGISLATURE?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I'VE DONE IT FOR 12 YEARS.

THE QUESTION REALLY IS DO I
HAVE THE COURAGE AS THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TELL PEOPLE
THE THINGS THEY NEED TO KNOW,

RATHER THAN JUST THE RHETORIC
THAT THEY WANT TO HEAR.

AND I THINK THAT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT.

THE FACT AS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL YOU'RE CALLED UPON BY

LAW TO ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS,
NOT POLICY QUESTIONS.

NOT IS THIS GOOD LEGISLATION OR
IS THIS BAD LEGISLATION, BUT

INSTEAD RENDER A LEGAL OPINION
DOES THIS MEET CONSTITUTIONAL

MUSTER OR DOES IT NOT?

SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO LOOK INTO
A CRYSTAL BALL AND TRY TO

PREDICT WHAT THE COURT WILL
ULTIMATELY SAY, BUT YOUR DUTY

IS TO MAKE THAT CALL AS
OBJECTIVELY AS YOU CAN.

THAT'S THE BEST ADVICE YOU CAN
OFFER YOUR CLIENT, WHETHER THEY

LIKE IT OR WHETHER THEY DISLIKE
IT.

WHAT IT DOES WHEN YOU PERFORM
THAT FUNCTION, IS IT INFORMS

THEM IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN
MAKE A LEGITIMATE AND

MEANINGFUL DECISION BASED UPON
THAT ADVICE.

IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU
DO THAT.

SOME OF THE ISSUES WITH REGARD
TO THE CASE UP NORTH, MY

OPPONENT SAYS THAT I REFUSED
TO -- 18 LEGISLATORS ASKED ME,

PROBLEM WAS THE 18 LEGISLATORS
DIDN'T ASK UNTIL THE PERIOD HAD

CLOSED TO ENTER THE CASE.

IN FACT, WE CONSIDERED THAT
MATTER, AND I -- AND I DID TALK

TO MY CLIENT AND MY CLIENT
ASKED ME NOT TO SIGN ON.

AND AS A LAWYER, YOU HAVE AN
ETHICAL DUTY TO ACTUALLY TALK

TO YOUR CLIENT ABOUT THOSE
KINDS OF THINGS.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE
CONSIDERED WHAT WAS THE PROPER

LEGAL ISSUE, THE STATE
DEFENSIBLE ISSUE IN THAT CASE,

AND THERE WASN'T ONE.

BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY OF
DUEL SOVEREIGNS -- EACH CAN

ENFORCE THEIR OWN LAWS.

I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE EPA
DID BECAUSE THEY WERE WAY

OVERREACHING.

THERE WASN'T A STATE LEGALLY
PROTECTED INTEREST IN THAT

CASE.

THAT IS THE REASON -- THE --
NOT A STATE DEFENSIBLE ISSUE.

WITH REGARD TO THE LAND BOARD,
IF YOU PICK UP THE IDAHO

CONSTITUTION AND YOU READ IT,
ARTICLE 9 SECTION 8, IT SAYS

THAT THE LAND BOARD IS TO
OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM LONG-TERM

FINANCIAL RETURN FROM CERTAIN
ENDOWMENT LANDS IN ORDER TO

BENEFIT SCHOOLS AND OTHER
BENEFICIARIES.

IF YOU READ THAT LANGUAGE AND
READ THE CASE LAW THAT OUR OWN

IDAHO SUPREME COURT ISSUED, IT
SAID LAND BOARD YOU ARE IN

BUSINESS.

YOU ARE THE BUSINESS MANAGERS
OF THE STATE'S LAND BUSINESS.

YOUR JOB IS TO GO OUT IN THE
PRIVATE MARKETPLACE AND TO MAKE

AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN FOR
SCHOOLS.

NOW, THAT MEANS THAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, WE OWN FOREST LAND.

WE'RE COMPETING WITH OTHER
FOREST LAND HOLDERS.

WE'RE COMPETING WITH -- WITH
OTHERS.

WE HAVE -- WE'RE COMPETING WITH
OTHER COTTAGE SITE HOLDERS.

YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT YOU HAVE AS

A LAND BOARD MEMBER TO PERFORM
THE FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE

SCHOOL CHILDREN.

MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN
ON THEIR BEHALF.

CONSTITUTION THAT I TOOK AN
OATH TO UPHOLD, SAYS YOU ARE

RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING AS MUCH
MONEY AS YOU CAN FOR THE SCHOOL

CHILDREN.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO FULFILL THE
OBLIGATION UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION.

>> I KNOW THIS QUESTION HAS A
LOT TO DO WITH WHAT THEY JUST

ANSWERED.

>> MR. WAZ -- GOP IS A BATTLE,
A FIGHT FOR THE HEART AND SOUL

OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

ARE YOU OUT THERE ON THE FAR
EDGE OR ARE YOU RATIONAL?

CAN YOU CALLING MR. TROUPIS AN
EXTREMIST?

>> MY HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH
TEACHER SAID IF YOU WANT TO BE

TERRIFIC, YOU HAVE TO BE
SPECIFIC.

I DIDN'T USE THE WORD FRINGE.

THAT WAS THE LEWISTON TRIBUNE
THAT MY OPPONENT QUOTES.

I -- I DID SAY EXACTLY WHAT YOU
SAID.

THAT IS, THIS IS, IN FACT, A
FIGHT FOR THE HEART AND SOUL OF

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

TWO FACTIONS, AND TO -- AND
THERE ARE SOME MAIN STREAM

RATIONALE FOLKS AND THERE ARE
FOLKS ON THE EDGE, AND THAT IS

JUST HOW IT IS.

SO, I DO HOPE THAT THE
RATIONALE THOUGHT COMES

THROUGH.

SO, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN THIS ELECTION.

AND DO NOT IN ANY WAY BACK AWAY
FROM MY STATEMENT THAT THAT IS

THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS
ELECTION IS OCCURRING.

>> LET ME FOLLOW-UP,
MR. TROUPIS, IN TERMS OF WHERE

WE LOCATE YOU ON THE IDEA
IDEAOLOGICAL SPECTRUM -- A

COUPLE OF COMMENTS -- WHEN HE
SAID HE DID NOT INTERVENE

BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE, IN THE
LETTER THAT HE WROTE APRIL OF

2012, HE IDENTIFIED THE CLIENT
AS THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER

RESOURCES.

THEY DECIDED NOT TO INTERVENE.

THEY LOOKED AT THE CASE.

UPPED HIS DUTIES, SUBSECTION 15
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

DUTIES, HE IS TO PROTECT AND
PRESERVE THE RIGHTS AND

PROPERTY OF IDAHO RESIDENTS.

HE COULD HAVE INTERVENED.

13 OTHER STATES DID.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
DECIDED 9-0 THAT THEIR RIGHTS

WERE INFRINGED.

THAT IS THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN
THE PEOPLE AND THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S OFFICE.

THEY THINK THEY'RE REPRESENTING
THE GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF

REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE.

THE SECOND PART IS -- ON THE
LAND BOARD.

HE SAID -- AND I AGREE, THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS THE MAXIMUM

FINANCIAL RETURN.

BUT SELLING TIMBER IS
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED UNDER

THE IDAHO CONSTITUTION, BUT
COMPETING WITH PRIVATE

BUSINESSES IS NOT.

AND 1962 SUPREME COURT CASE ON
THAT POINT.

SO, IN SAYING I'M IN THE
MAINSTREAM, I BELIEVE THAT --

AND MY VIEWS ON TAKING BACK
FEDERAL LANDS ARE MAINSTREAM,

AND I BELIEVE THAT EACH AND
EVERYONE OF THE POSITIONS I

HAVE TAKEN, IN LINE WITH NOT
ONLY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MAIN

STREAM, BUT IN LINE OF THE
VIEWS OF MOST AVERAGE IDAHOANS.

>> A QUICK FOLLOW-UP.

IF IN WASDEN --
>> ABSOLUTELY.

I AM A REPUBLICAN.

I BELIEVE IN REPUBLICAN VALUES,
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

PLATFORM -- YES, IF HE WINS, IF
HE DOES, I WILL SUPPORT HIM.

>> WOULD YOU SUPPORT
MR. TROUPIS?

>> I CERTAINLY SUPPORT ALL
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES IN THE

GENERAL ELECTION.

>> DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP ON
THE LAND BOARD?

>> SURE.

YOU BOTH TALKED ABOUT THE LAND
BOARD QUITE A BIT.

WE WILL SKIP TO THIS QUESTION
NOW.

MR. TROUPIS, YOU SAID THAT THE
STATE SHOULDN'T COMPETE WITH

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HOW
CAN THE LAND BOARD UPHOLD THAT

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO MAXIMIZE
ITS FINANCIAL RETURNS BUT NOT

BE IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE
BUSINESS?

>> IT TURNS OUT THAT, AS I
SAID, THE CONSTITUTION, IN

SECTION 8, ARTICLE 9,
SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THE LAND

BOARD TO SELL TIMBER.

AND, IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT
THE STATISTICS, WHILE MOST

STATES LOSE MONEY ON PUBLIC
LANDS -- STATES OF IDAHO,

WYOMING, AND I BELIEVE
WASHINGTON, ACTUALLY COUNTERED

FOR 73% OF THE PROFITS ON
MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS AND

66% OF THE REVENUES AND THAT'S
BECAUSE OF THE TIMBERLANDS THEY

HELD.

IN FACT, WHAT WE FOUND IF YOU
LOOK AT THE ACCOUNTING OF THE

LAND BOARD, THEY ACTUALLY
EITHER LOST MONEY OR MADE VERY

LITTLE MONEY ON THE RESIDENTIAL
INVESTMENTS, RESIDENTIAL

PROPERTY INVESTMENTS AND
COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS.

IN TIMBER, THEY CAN MAKE 6 TO
8% RETURN, WHICH I BELIEVE

WOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF
FUNDS THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE

FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

IN ADDITION, WHEN YOU TALK
ABOUT THE MAXIMUM FINANCIAL

RETURN, IT MUST BE IN LINE WITH
THE FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF THE

LAND BOARD.

THIS LAND BOARD, TRYING TO
REACH THAT GOAL, ONE TIME

INVESTED IN THE STOCK MARKET
AND I BELIEVE LOST OVER $300

MILLION.

WELL, IT IS A RISKY INVESTMENT,
AND SOMETIMES COMMERCIAL

VENTURES ARE VERY RISKY
INVESTMENTS, WHEREAS TIMBER IS

A SUSTAINABLE, RENEWABLE
RESOURCE THAT THE CONSTITUTION

SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED.

MY INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THAT PROVISION

WOULD ALLOW THE LAND BOARD TO
INVEST IN TIMBER PROPERTIES TO

EXCHANGE OUT THE RESIDENTIAL
REAL ESTATE AND COMMERCIAL

PROPERTIES AND GRAZING LANDS
AND RETAIN THE TIMBER

PROPERTIES AND ACQUIRE MORE
TIMBER PROPERTIES BY EXCHANGES

AND THAT WOULD MAXIMIZE THE
FINANCIAL RETURN AND FULFILL

THE FIDUCIARY DUTIES.

IT WOULD ALSO RETURN TAXABLE
PROPERTIES TO THE TAX ROLLS IN

THOSE COUNTIES WITH THE
LAKEFRONT PROPERTIES, AND THAT

WOULD BE A WIN, WIN, WIN, FOR
THE COUNTIES, THE SCHOOLS, AND

THE LAND BOARD.

>> MR. WASDEN, YOU SUED THE
LAND BOARD FOR YOUR FEELING

THAT THEY WERE NOT MEETING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

HOW CAN YOU BE A MEMBER OF THE
LAND BOARD THAT YOU HAVE SUED

AND IS THERE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST THERE?

>> THIS IS, IN FACT, NO THE --
NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THE REASON THERE IS NOT A
CONFLICT, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS

THERE IS NOT A CONFLICT.

I AM A MEMBER OF THE LAND BOARD
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS

I'M A MEMBER OF THE LAND BOARD.

I WEAR A UNIQUE HAT AS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.

BECAUSE THE ENDOWMENT IS A
PUBLIC TRUST, ATTORNEY GENERAL

VERY UNIQUELY IN THE STATE BY
LAW IS TO ENFORCE THE

REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE TRUSTS.

SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS A
NUMBER OF HATS TO WEAR.

BUT IT IS NOT BY CHOICE.

IT'S BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS SAY.

IF YOU ASK FROM A TECHNICAL
PERSPECTIVE, A LEGAL

PERSPECTIVE, IS THERE A
CONFLICT, THE ANSWER IS NO.

THE LAW SAYS THERE IS NOT A
CONFLI

CONFLICT.

IS IT DIFFICULT TO GO INTO A
LAND BOARD MEETING WHEN YOU SEE

THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE LAND
BOARD?

THE ANSWER, YEAH, THAT'S PRETTY
TOUGH.

IN THAT INSTANCE, IDAHO SUPREME
COURT, NOT ONLY WAS IT MY

OBLIGATION TO DO SO, MY DUTY TO
BRING THAT LAWSUIT TO REQUIRE

THE LAND BOARD TO FULFILL THE
FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SCHOOL

CHILDREN.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS
THAT FLOW INTO THE FIDUCIARY

RESPONSIBILITY.

YOU HAVE TO BE A PRUDENT
INVESTOR.

THAT IS BY STATUTE.

THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT
PRUDENT INVESTORS DO.

YOU CAN'T PUT ALL OF YOUR EGGS
IN THE TIMBER BASKET.

IT IS TRUE THAT WE PRODUCED A
MAJORITY OF OUR MONEY FROM A

TIMBER BASKET, BUT WHAT
HAPPENED IN 2008 WHEN HOME

SALES WENT DOWN.

AND OUR TIMBER SALES WENT DOWN.

OUR REVENUES WENT INTO THE
DUMPER, TOO.

YOU CAN'T JUST PUT ALL OF YOUR
EGGS IN THAT ONE BASKET.

THE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO ACT AS
A PRUDENT INVESTOR, WHICH

INCLUDES DIVERSIFICATION.

NOW, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT OUR
TIMBER HOLDINGS, WE HAVE ABOUT

800,000 ACRES ARE SO OF
TIMBERLANDS, AND OUR CASH ON

CASH RETURN IN THE LAST FIVE
YEARS ON AVERAGE WAS 3%.

NOW, CASH ON CASH RETURN ON
GRAZING LAND, OF WHICH WE HAVE

ABOUT 1.7, 1.8 ACRES, WAS
0.04%.

NOW, YOU HAVE TO SAY WHERE CAN
I INVEST MY MONEY THAT'S GOING

TO MAKE A RETURN?

AND TIMBERLANDS CERTAINLY
BETTER THAN GRAZING LAND.

ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT
WILL MAKE MORE MONEY THAN

TIMBERLAND?

THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SAY TO
GO OUT AND BUY COMMERCIAL

PROPERTY.

WHAT IT SAYS IS TAKE YOUR
MONEY, INVEST IT IN A WAY THAT

WILL MAKE THE MOST AMOUNT.

BUY THOSE LANDS THAT ARE GOING
TO RETURN THE GREATEST AMOUNT

OF MONEY TO YOU.

>> WRAP UP THE COMMENTS.

>> SURE.

THAT IS THE OBLIGATION.

THAT IS THE FID DUUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITY.

GO OUT AND MAKE AS MUCH MONEY
AS YOU CAN.

IT IS NOT TO SAY WE ARE NOT
GOING TO COMPETE WITH THE

PRIVATE SECTOR.

BY DEFINITION, YOU HAVE TO
COMPETE WITH THE PRIVATE

SECTOR -- THAT IS THE --
>> WE WILL SKIP TO REBECCA

BOONE.

NEXT QUESTION TO MR. TROUPIS.

>> IDAHO IS CURRENTLY A
DEFENDANT IN A LAWSUIT OVER GAY

MARRIAGE, BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE.

THEY HAVE ORAL ARGUMENTS ON
MONDAY IN THAT CASE.

AS MORE STATES DECLARE GAY
MARRIAGE BANS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,

IS THERE A POINT AT WHICH YOU
CAN NO LONGER DEFEND A STATE

LAW?

>> IN THIS CASE I AM GOING TO
AGREE WITH MY OPPONENT.

IN FACT, HE IS DOING WHAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS REQUIRED TO

DO.

BE INVOLVED IN THAT CASE AS A
DEFENDANT TO DEFEND THE

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
IDAHO.

THAT IS WHAT THE VOTERS
APPROVED, AND HE -- I WOULD BE

OBLIGATED TO DEFEND IT AS WELL.

AND I WOULD DO THAT UNTIL THERE
IS A DEFINITIVE DECISION THAT

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
WAS NOT VALID.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS
COMING.

I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THE
CASES HAVE DEVELOPED, THEY HAVE

BEEN BROUGHT AS DISCRIMINATION
CASES RATHER THAN ON THE

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

AND THAT HAS BEEN MERGED
TOGETHER, I THINK, IMPROPERLY.

THE SUPREME COURT, RECENT
DECISION, SAID THAT THE DEF

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IS A
MATTER FOR STATES, NOT THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

IF THE CASE IS DECIDED STRICTLY
ON THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE,

I THINK IDAHO'S CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT, THAT MARRIAGE IS

BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN,
WOULD BE UPHELD.

IF THE CASE IS MERGED INTO A
DISCRIMINATION CASE, THEN THOSE

FACTS GET MUDDLED AND WHO KNOWS
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD

DECIDE.

I THINK THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO
DEFEND THAT CASE IS TO SEPARATE

OUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ISSUE

FROM THE DISCRIMINATION ISSUE.

BUT AS I THINK I'VE ALREADY
ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT I

WOULD DEFEND THIS TO THE FULL
EXTENT OF THE LAW UNTIL THERE

IS A DEFINITIVE DECISION SAYING
I NO LONGER HAD LEGAL GROUNDS

TO DO SO.

>> AT WHAT POINT DO IN ANY CASE
GAY MARRIAGE OR OTHERWISE, IS

THERE ANOTHER OF A SNOWBALL OF
CASE LAW WHERE YOU THROW UP

YOUR HANDS OR DO YOU KEEP
DEFENDING IT?

>> THE ENTITY THAT WILL
ULTIMATELY MAKE THE DECISION

ABOUT WHETHER IDAHO'S
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

DEFINING MARRIAGE, THE ENTITY
THAT WILL MAKE THE DECISION IS

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT.

IN THE DOMA CASE, THE COURT DID
SAY THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

IS IN THE PROVINCE OF THE
STATES.

OUR STATE COLLECTIVELY AMENDED
THEIR CONSTITUTION AND GAVE A

DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES
AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVE SAID

WE'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF
HISTORY.

I'M JUST NOT GOING TO DEFEND
IT.

LET ME TELL YOU I DISAGREE WITH
THEM.

I WAS PRESENT WHEN ERIC HOLDER
CAME AND SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEYS

GENERAL AND SAID IF YOU DON'T
LIKE YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION,

JUST IGNORE IT.

I REJECT THAT.

I REJECT THAT ON THE RIGHT SIDE
AND THE LEFT SIDE.

WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE
RULE OF LAW TO FULFILL AND

DEFEND THAT CONSTITUTION.

THAT IS WHY I MOVED TO
INTERVENE IN THAT CASE AND WE

WILL PURSUE THAT CASE
LEGITIMATELY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE

OF THE STATE HAVE SAID THAT'S
OUR POLICY, IT'S IN OUR

CONSTITUTION, AND UNTIL THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

SAYS EITHER THAT'S VALID OR
INVALID.

>> OKAY.

JUST ABOUT OUT OF TIME.

ABOUT A MINUTE FOR AN ANSWER
FROM EACH BUT WE'RE GOING TO

MOVE TO OUR NEXT PANELIST, JIM
WEATHERBY FOR OUR LAST QUESTION

BEFORE THE CLOSING STATEMENTS.

>> AND THIS IS FOR
MR. TROUPIS --

>> FOR MR. WASDEN.

>> VERY QUICKLY.

YOU HAVE HAD SOME CONFLICT WITH
THE LEGISLATURE OVER SOME OF

YOUR OFFICE'S LEGAL OPINION.

DO YOU THINK IT IS WISE FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO PROCEED ON

SETTING UP A SEPARATE LEGAL
COUNSEL?

>> THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALWAYS
HAD THE POWER, ABILITY TO

CHOOSE THEIR OWN COUNSEL.

I AM A CAPTIVE LAWYER OF THE
LEGISLATURE, MEANING THAT THEY

ARE NOT A CAPTIVE CLIENT.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS IF THEY ASK
ME A QUESTION, I'M REQUIRED TO

GIVE THEM AN ANSWER.

THE IMPORTANT THING THAT YOU
HAVE TO DO AS THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL IS YOU WEAR A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT HATS.

ONE OF THOSE HATS IS AS THE
ADVISOR.

WHEN A QUESTION IS ASKED, YOU
HAVE TO GIVE THE ANSWER AS TO

WHAT THE LAW IS, NOT WHETHER IT
IS GOOD OR BAD POLICY.

BUT WHAT THE LAW IS THAT ALLOWS
THEM TO MAKE THE PROPER

LEGISLATIVE DECISION.

ONCE THEY HAVE CHOSEN THE
POLICY, SET THAT IN LAW, THEN

MY OBLIGATION IS TO DEFEND THAT
LAW, WHETHER I AGREE OR

DISAGREE, WHETHER I THINK IT IS
GOOD OR BAD IS IRRELEVANT.

WHAT IS RELEVANT THAT I
PROPERLY ADVICE THEM, THEY MAKE

THEIR CHOICE AND THEN I DEFEND
THAT.

THAT IS THE PROCESS YOU HAVE AS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

>> LET'S GIVE --
>> I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH

OPINIONS WRITTEN BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE TO THE

LEGISLATURE.

SENATE BILL 1277, AUTHORIZE
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY ON THE

LAND BOARD.

FIRST OPINION SAID THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION WAS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I WAS ASKED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE RESOURCE COMMITTEE TO DRAFT

MY OWN OPINION, WHICH I DID.

I THOUGHT IT WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL.

AND THEN I SAW A SECOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION THAT

SAID WELL, YES, IT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND THE BILL

PASSED AND THE BILL IS NOW
BECOMING LAW.

AND I HAVE SEEN THAT IN OTHER
CASES AS WELL WHERE

INCONSISTENT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPINIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN.

I THINK THAT IS THE REASON THE
LEGISLATURE CREATED A LEGAL

DEFENSE FUND TO HIRE THEIR OWN
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO GET

OPINIONS THEY RELY ON --
>> WRAP UP.

WE ARE JUST OUT OF TIME.

>> WE WANT TO GIVE THE
CANDIDATES, TWO MINUTES TO MAKE

THEIR CLOSING STATEMENTS.

TWO MINUTES EACH.

AND THE FIRST RESPONSE COMES TO
MR. TROUPIS.

>> I WANT TO THANK THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS, IDAHO PUBLIC

TELEVISION, OUR PANELISTS, AND
ATTORNEY GENERAL WASDEN FOR

BEING HERE TODAY FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY.

I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE THIS
DEBATE.

WE KNOW THAT AMERICA HAS VEERED
DANGEROUSLY OFF COURSE.

WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR WAY,
CHANGE OUR APPROACH -- THE

CRISIS IS NO DIFFERENT HERE IN
IDAHO THAN ELSEWHERE.

WE ARE DEFENDING THE LAST BEST
PLACE ON PLANET EARTH.

THE BATTLE LINES HAVE BEEN
DRAWN.

WE CANNOT BECOME THE NEXT SUB
DIVISION OF WASHINGTON, D.C.,

IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE.

WE MUST STAND FIRM FOR OUR
CHILDREN, THEIR FREEDOM AND

THEIR GRANDCHILDREN'S FREEDOM
AND OUR ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE

FROM WASHINGTON.

TONIGHT WE TALKED ABOUT OBAMA
CARE, OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS,

IDAHO LANDS, OUR SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND

RECLAIMING OUR PUBLIC LANDS.

IN EVERY CASE, THIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS TAKEN THE WRONG

COURSE.

HE HAS LOST HIS WAY.

HE HAS CHOSEN TIME AND AGAIN TO
SIDE WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND

AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

WE MUST REFOCUS.

I WILL ALWAYS BE AN ADVOCATE
FOR YOU.

FOR THE PEOPLE.

IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE.

I WANT TO THANK ALL OF MY MANY
SUPPORTERS THROUGHOUT THE STATE

FOR YOUR HARD WORK, FOR YOUR
COMMITMENT IN THIS CAMPAIGN AND

ESPECIALLY FOR YOUR PRAYERS.

AND I WANT TO THANK MY
WONDERFUL WIFE FOR STANDING BY

ME THROUGH THIS CHALLENGING
TIME.

I'M ASKING YOU, ALL OF YOU NOW,
TO STAND WITH US AS WELL

TOGETHER LET'S MAKE IDAHO A
BEACON OF LIGHT AND HOPE FOR

THE REST OF AMERICA.

TRUE CHANGE SHOULD START HERE.

THANK YOU.

AND GOD BLESS.

>> TWO MINUTES, MR. WASDEN.

>> THANK YOU.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN RHETORIC AND REALITY.

YOU NEED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY
GENERAL WHO WILL TELL YOU WHAT

YOU NEED TO KNOW, RATHER THAN
WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.

THE ONE THAT WILL TELL YOU THE
WHOLE STORY, NOT JUST THE PART

THAT CAN BE MANIPULATED TO
ONE'S POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

FOR EXAMPLE, ARTICLE 21,
SECTION 19, SAYS THAT THE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
FOREVER DISCLAIMED THE

UNAPPROPRIATED LANDS THAT LIE
WITHIN THE BORDERS OF OUR

STATE.

THAT MEANS THAT WE CANNOT
SIMPLY ARGUE AWAY, EXPLAIN AWAY

THE LANGUAGE OF OUR OWN
CONSTITUTION THAT SAYS THOSE

LANDS WITHIN OUR STATE, OWNED
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE

FOREVER DISCLAIMED THEM.

IN 1947, OUR OWN LEGISLATURE --
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WE WANT YOU

TO OWN THOSE LANDS.

DO NOT GIVE THEM TO US.

WE NEVER OWNED THOSE LANDS.

WE WERE SIGNED INTO A TERRITORY
BY ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN MARCH OF

1863, TERRITORY OF THE UNITED
STATES.

THOSE WERE LANDS WE NEVER
OWNED.

THEY WERE LANDS THAT WE
DISCLAIMED, AND WE LANDS THAT

WE SAID FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU
KEEP THEM IN YOUR POSSESSION.

IF WE ARE GOING TO MANAGE THOSE
LANDS OR GET THOSE LANDS BACK,

WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH
CONGRESS.

WE CAN'T OVERCOME THE LANGUAGE
OF OUR OWN CONSTITUTION.

THAT'S WHY IT IS IMPORTANT NOT
JUST TO HAVE RHETORIC, BUT

REALITY.

WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND
AMENDMENT, I FIRMLY HAVE

SUPPORTED THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

IT IS TRUE MY OPPONENT CALLED
ATTENTION TO ERROR MADE IN THE

OFFICE EIGHT YEARS AGO.

HE ONLY TELLS PART OF THE
STORY.

THE REST OF THE STORY -- I
FOUND OUT THE NEXT DAY WITHIN

48 HOURS WE WERE OFF OF THAT
BRIEF IN THE PATTERSON CASE.

WE SIGNED ON TO THE HELLER
CASE, THE McDONALD VERSUS CITY

OF CHICAGO CASE, NRA VERSUS THE
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS

CASE.

I WAS ENDORSED BY THE NRA, MY
OPPONENT WAS NOT.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE AN
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO WILL TELL

US THE WHOLE STORY, ALL OF THE
FACTORS, ALL OF THE MATTERS SO

THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN
INTELLIGENT AND RATIONALE

CHOICE.

NOT JUST THE THINGS WE WANT TO
HEAR.

WE NEED TO HEAR REALITY, NOT
JUST RHETORIC.

I AM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MY
NAME IS LAWRENCE WASDEN.

I APPRECIATE HAVING BEEN ABLE
TO SERVE FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS

AND I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE ON MAY
20th.

THANK YOU.

>> I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF
THESE GENTLEMEN FOR THEIR TIME

TONIGHT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
GET OUT AND MAKE YOUR VOTE ON

MAY 20th.

THAT WILL DO IT FOR US ON IDAHO
DEBATES.

WE WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW NIGHT.

Captioning Performed by
LNS Captioning
www.lnscaptioning.com

>> THE IDAHO DEBATES MADE
POSSIBLE BY BOISE STATE

UNIVERSITY, COMMITTED TO PUBLIC
SERVICE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND

THE STATE OF IDAHO FOR MORE
THAN 80 YEARS, OFFERING

UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE
DEGREES, COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL

PLANNING, ECONOMICS, AND MORE.

IDAHO DEBATES ARE ALSO BROUGHT
TO YOU BY YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO

THE IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION
ENDOWMENT.

THANK YOU.