Washington Attorney General Nick Brown wants nothing to do with defending the will of Washington voters. The state's top lawyer, a staunch supporter of transgender causes, has officially recused himself from defending Initiative 638—the ballot measure barring biological males from competing in female sports—and has appointed outside counsel to handle the defense in his stead, according to the Washington Examiner.
The move comes after Washington voters passed I-638 by a decisive 56% to 44% margin on Election Day—a 12-point thumping that stunned the state's progressive establishment. The measure, which protects girls' and women's sports by restricting competition to biological females, was immediately challenged in court by transgender activists backed by the ACLU.
Rather than defend a law passed by a comfortable majority of his own constituents, Brown has outsourced the job. His office announced it would contract with an outside law firm to defend I-638, a decision that drew immediate criticism from supporters of the measure.
"Anytime you have a ballot measure, it is natural, and I believe an appropriate role for the legislature to say, 'What are the adjustments that need to be added?'" Colorado Gov.-Elect Phil Weiser told reporters, according to HotAir, signaling that Democratic leaders in multiple states are looking for ways to blunt similar voter-approved protections.
The Washington fight is part of a national pushback. Voters in four states approved girls' sports protections on Election Day, and Democratic leaders in Washington and Colorado have already begun discussing how to dilute or overturn them. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Seattle progressive, spoke at a campaign event hosted by the initiative's opponents and pledged to overturn what she called "these bad initiatives," HotAir reported.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a motion seeking to defend I-638 on behalf of Female Athletes United, arguing the state cannot fully represent the interests of female athletes in the case. The ACLU-backed lawsuit challenging the measure is moving forward in Washington courts.
Critics of Brown's decision say the recusal raises questions about whether the attorney general's office will mount a vigorous defense of a law its own client—the people of Washington—overwhelmingly approved. Brown has not publicly explained the reasoning behind the recusal beyond the appointment of outside counsel.
Our Take
Let's call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded temper tantrum. Nick Brown took an oath to defend the laws of Washington state, not just the ones he personally likes. Voters spoke with a 12-point margin—that's not a fluke, that's a mandate—and the attorney general's response was to hand the case to someone else and wash his hands of it.
Imagine the precedent. If every elected prosecutor recused themselves from defending laws passed by the other party, the rule of law would collapse into a partisan choose-your-own-adventure. Brown knows exactly what he's doing: slow-walking the defense, signaling to the ACLU and its allies that the state's heart isn't in it, and hoping a judge strikes down the measure before it ever takes effect.
Meanwhile, ADF and Female Athletes United are stepping into the breach because the state's own lawyer won't do his job. That's a telling inversion—outside groups have to defend the votes of Washington citizens because the man elected to represent them won't.
Patriots, pay attention to who fights for your vote and who treats it like an inconvenience. Jayapal and Weiser are already talking about "adjustments" to voter-approved protections. Brown is recusing. The message from the Left is clear: your ballot is only sacred until it inconveniences their agenda.
The question now is whether Washington courts will honor a 12-point mandate or let a recusal and an ACLU lawsuit override the people. If they can do it to girls' sports, they can do it to anything.
