Lauren McFalls/For The Olympian
State assistant attorneys general (from left) Jeff Even, Jim Pharris and Bill Clark defended the state's blanket primary in a recent court challenge.

Courting a Challenge

Assistant attorneys general sink teeth into state's toughest cases

PATRICK CONDON, THE OLYMPIAN

Originally published Monday, April 1, 2002

OLYMPIA -- A year ago, the state attorneys assigned to defending Washington's blanket primary were as skeptical as anyone else that it could survive a serious legal challenge from the Democratic and Republican parties.

"I think the parties went into this expecting they would win and the blanket primary would cease to exist," said Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris, who led the small group of assistant attorneys general who successfully defended the primary. "For quite a while, honestly, we didn't think they were wrong."

But last week, federal District Court Judge Franklin Burgess ruled that the parties were wrong.

Burgess found that the state's longtime blanket primary is constitutional, even in the face of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a similar blanket primary in California was unconstitutional.

It was a stunning victory for the state, and Pharris and his fellow assistant attorneys general Jeff Even and Bill Clark found themselves heaped with praise by their boss, Attorney General Christine Gregoire, as well as Secretary of State Sam Reed, the chief defendant in the case.

"This was an exemplary legal effort," Reed said at a press conference called to mark the legal victory.

Tall job, not top dollar

It was a reminder of the depth and width of the legal work performed by the state's 489 assistant attorneys general, who represent every state agency and institution and delve into untold realms and regions of public policy.

Gregoire has consistently advocated for higher pay for her staff attorneys.

Gregoire said it's difficult to recruit and retain qualified candidates for the jobs, in the face of private law firms willing to pay top dollar for skilled lawyers.

"The money is a downside," said Pharris, a Harvard Law School graduate who's worked for the state for nearly 30 years. "It's a real one, and I think about it every time I get my paycheck. But the work is good and important."

Said Clark, a litigator who joined the attorney general's office last July after years in private practice, "You feel like you're working for the people -- not for some board of directors or the stockholders."

Clark said that in his 20 years in private practice, "I never got to deal with questions of constitutional law -- this was a great chance to do that."

Even, a self-admitted political junkie, described his role as counsel to the Secretary of State's Office as a "dream job" that allows him to sink his teeth into all kinds of legal questions pertaining to elections and the political process.

"I like to say I have the best lawyer job in the state of Washington," Even said, adding with a self-deprecating laugh, "I'm an example of how sometimes in life, it's better to be lucky than to be good."

Pharris and Even had worked together numerous times in the past on legal matters relating to the political process.

They've had their share of defeats, including their unsuccessful attempt to defend term limits implemented through a voter initiative.

Both were quickly assigned to the blanket primary case during summer 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the California version.

They recognized the coming challenge well in advance: Even had joined then-Secretary of State Ralph Munro in attending the oral arguments before the high court in the California case.

Finding a case

Once the political parties filed their suit, Pharris and Even were mostly occupied with buying enough time for the Legislature to craft a replacement.

Around the time the Legislature failed at that task, the two lawyers began to realize they might have the grounds for an argument that the Washington system was different enough from California's that it could be saved.

"We began to realize, to our surprise somewhat, that we might have a trial on this," Pharris said.

Within months, Gregoire had assigned Clark to the case, where he was to draw on his background in litigation in anticipation of a trial.

In the end, a trial never even came to pass.

Judge Burgess decided that the political parties failed to make a compelling argument that they are being damaged by the blanket primary, and he granted the state's motion to throw their case out on summary judgment.

"The parties were operating primarily on the notion that they deserved to win," Pharris said. "The judge realized that wasn't enough."

The attorneys realize their work on this case probably isn't over. The political parties will almost certainly appeal Burgess' ruling, and both sides think the case will ultimately go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"All we try to do is serve the people and try to make sure the system works well," Even said. "It was the people who originally decided they wanted the blanket primary. That's something they shouldn't have to apologize for."

On the Web:

- Office of the Attorney General

The Olympian Copyright 2002

back to State Workers index