Something of a stunner in Sunday’s Times Argus regarding the Democratic primary for Attorney General. Well, it stunned me at least.
The thesis of the (paywall protected) front-page story, written by Peter Hirschfeld and entitled “Yankee one key to AG primary,” is that Vermont Yankee will be a big issue in the race — maybe the biggest one. That didn’t surprise me, but thesis part 2 did: that VY will be an asset for Bill Sorrell.
If I recall correctly, he lost the case and has been criticized for his courtroom strategy. But even so, Hirschfeld posits that the anti-Yankee vote may break strongly for Sorrell in August.
“Generally speaking, if there’s somebody who wants to see Vermont Yankee shut down, Bill Sorrell has really positioned himself best with those voters,” said Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School and expert in constitutional law.
…high-profile voices at two of the state’s leading anti-nuclear organizations – Vermont Citizens Action Network and Vermont Public Interest Research Group – seem to be signaling a preference in that community for Sorrell.
The pro-Sorrell feeling arises from two factors: (1) early statements by Donovan that seemed lukewarm, or even negative, toward the anti-Yankee legal case, and (2) loyalty to Sorrell as the man who fought Entergy in court.
Even though he lost. Seems a bit backward to me; Donovan is being downgraded for his words (which he has since amended), while Sorrell is rewarded for taking action that failed.
After the jump: a dissenting view from the anti-Yankee camp.
This feeling isn’t unanimous; Arnie and Maggie Gundersen* of Fairewinds Energy Education — prominent opponents of Entergy Nuclear — are going with Donovan.
Note: Maggie is a fellow GMD front-pager. I have not discussed this diary with her; the commentary and analysis are entirely my own.
[Arnie] Gundersen is as critical of Sorrell as he is supportive of Donovan. Gundersen said Sorrell’s refusal to secure outside counsel at the outset of the Yankee case was “absurd.”
“You’re going up against an attorney (for Entergy) being considered for the Supreme Court and you don’t get outside help?” he said. “That’s a fundamental mistake.”
Gundersen said Sorrell also bungled an investigation into whether Entergy executives lied about the existence of underground pipes at the Vernon plant.
Gundersen isn’t the only one who’s questioned Sorrell’s handling of the case. Pat Parenteau of the Vermont Law School has also said that outside counsel should have been retained for the initial trial — a step Sorrell has now taken for the appeal.
Parenteau said [Entergy attorney Kathleen] Sullivan had dominated the trial, and had gotten almost everything Entergy had sought from the judge.
“Kathleen Sullivan cleaned the deck and the state got out-lawyered,” he said. “She put on a better case.”
To my mind, the recent support for the appeal from nine states and the National Conference of State Legislatures reinforces criticism of Sorrell. The states are concerned with Judge J. Garvan Murtha’s reference to legislative debates, rather than simply evaluating the law that came out of the process.
At trial, Sullivan introduced numerous pieces of legislative debate. The fact that so many other states are getting involved says to me that Judge Murtha’s use of legislative debates was a highly unusual step, and that Sorrell may have been able to block it or counteract it more effectively.
Maybe someone in the anti-Yankee community can explain the apparent loyalty to Sorrell. To me, it seems like re-upping a general who lost a key battle. You can applaud his valor, but do you really want him in charge of the next fight?
I understand the message they’ve got out there now, and it’s certainly substantive things that TJ wants to do differently, but I’m not sure that message is enough to get voters excited to come out to a primary and oust the incumbent. If you want to get voters amped up to vote in a primary, I think they’re owed a more compelling reason, and the most compelling reason for party activists is going to be – who can defend Vermont’s big progressive decisions in court.
Bill lost on VY. And VY isn’t going to be the only big progressive act that’s going to get challenged in courts – you can bet single-payer is going to see a legal challenge, the same as campaign finance and all these other important pieces of legislation always do. I’d be worried about his ability to take the right legal steps to protect VT’s progressive laws when the ball was totally dropped on VY. And that’s a line of attack I can get excited about – TJ’s a talented lawyer who is hungry to go up against the big guns and win.
That’s pretty much it.
We’re talking lawyers here, not primary policy makers. A really excellent lawyer doesn’t politicize his/her arguments, because that won’t win for the client.
We need someone in that office who will win for us, the people of Vermont; bringing on all the resources necessary to make that happen.
Donovan seems to me to be that guy.
needs to appear less like someone trying to climb the ladder. Comes off as not terribly interested. And it makes me not terribly interested in him.
I’m sorry if I come across as frustrated, but I think some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the attorney general in this state. The legislature, one of the most progressive in the country, ends up passing laws which are great in principle but very prone to litigation. The attorney general attempts to defend them in a VERY conservative federal court system and understandably loses. Why is this Sorrell’s fault? I think the blame lies with a federal court system which is packed with very conservative justices, or even with the legislature for ignoring that fact.
The truth is Bill Sorrell has had many significant victories for the state of Vermont, despite the difficulty of getting any progressive result out of federal courts. I think people should stop pretending that TJ Donovan would do the job any differently, if anything he would lose more cases until he adjusts to the greater responsibility of the state’s top law enforcement officer.
I posted the following comments earlier today, but for some reason GMD did not put them up. I would hope that my following comments would make it up on the screen.
Thanks, Bob Stannard
—————————-
I have a history with the issues around VY. I’ve been lobbying to close the plant for five years. I was unhappy that we lost the suit to Entergy is district 1, but after sitting through the entire trial I can say this with confidence. We got a bad judge who bought into the glitz and glitter of an expensive law firm. It didn’t help that the closing attorney had a horrible cold. These things mattered. The state put on a very good, logical case.
Curt Hebert’s testimony alone should’ve been enough to convince the judge, but he had his mind made up before that trial began. Now, regarding this article. I’ve been a fan of GMD for a long time and will continue to be a fan for a long time going forward, but I would take issue with this piece.
Mr. Donovan has not “amended” his position. He came out ambivilent on the Entergy suit and only changed his tune when he realized that he would need the anti-nuke constituency to win the primary.
He has publicly stated that he was “mentored” by Burlington’s proclaimed king maker; Harlan Sylvester. Do we believe that Sylvester supports closing down VY, or single-payer, or GMO labeling or any other progressive issue? I don’t, and if this is the man to whom Mr.
Donovan is aligned then I sincerely doubt if he does either.
You may ask why would I support Bill Sorrell after he lost the single most important case that I care about? That answer is simple: he is absolutely THE best person to take this case to appeal. His career is on the line with this case. For him it’s a “must win” deal.
For Mr. Donovan it doesn’t really matter. He’s expressed little interest in the case and should he take it forward and lose he can always say that it was Sorrell’s fault. His heart and soul is not in this no matter what he’s saying now.
I have some experience in what I say. Mr. Donovan began reaching out to me during the last legislative session. He said he wanted to buy me a coffee and talk about VY and the case. I told him that I was in the building every day and to just give me a call and we could meet.
He reached out to me 9 times yet never set up a meeting. The ninth time he called me at home after the session was out and I told him that it was too little, too late.
It’s the same way I feel about his new-found interest in the VY case.
I’m glad to have sparked some discussion. We obviously don’t all agree, but this is the single biggest race in the August primary, and I’m happy to see the issues addressed here.
And by all means, feel free to continue the thread.
Is it NOT a crime in Vermont to financially, mentally and physically abuse the elderly and infirmed. Is withholding pay and providing sub-sub-standard housing and medical care to immigrant and migrant workers Not a crime in Vermont? Are the activities of Drug Gangs from Massachusetts NOT a crime in Vermont? And, is the murder and disappearance of women and other people NOT a crime in Vermont? FUCK THE VERMONT YANKEE CASE! I WANT AN AG WHO CAN DEAL WITH INJUSTICE AND CRIME AND SEND HIS ASSISTANT IN TO TACKLE ENTERGY BECAUSE, AS ABSURD AS ENTERGY’S POSITION IS, IT SHOULD ONLY TAKE AN ASSISTANT AG TO DEAL WITH IT!!!
Sorrell is WEAK on Civil Rights, Injustice, and Crime. He should be a Defense Lawyer for the abusers of the law.