Brown and Serrano clash in back-to-back AG debates

By Jerry Cornfield and Laurel Demkovich, Washington State Standard

Democrat Nick Brown and Republican Pete Serrano disagree sharply on the role and reach of Washington’s attorney general. 

Their conflicting visions – Brown sees the office as a vehicle for change, Serrano views it as too activist already – emerged in a pair of debates this week between the two candidates running to be Washington’s next top lawyer.

Their first face-off was Wednesday in Spokane, an event hosted by the Association of Washington Business. The next day, they traveled over the Cascades to Seattle for a debate hosted by the Washington Debate Coalition. The Washington State Standard was a co-sponsor of Thursday’s debate, and reporter Laurel Demkovich sat on the panel of journalists asking questions. 

The winner of the Nov. 5 general election will be charged with advising the governor, the Legislature and state agencies on legal issues and representing them if they ever end up in court. The attorney general’s office is made up of 27 legal divisions including consumer protection, civil rights and criminal justice.

Whoever is elected will oversee more than 1,800 employees, including around 800 attorneys who provide legal service to more than 230 state agencies, boards and commissions.

Here are highlights of what they said during the debates.

Very different views on the job

Serrano does not think the office should have an outsized role in proposing legislation. 

“The attorney general’s office needs to focus back on what its constitutional mission is,” Serrano said Wednesday. “Get back to advising those regulatory agencies. Do not let them run amok. Do not let them expand their own powers.”

 He said he would not push legislation unless it is necessary for the function of the office. 

Brown, on the other hand, takes a broader view of the office. While he agrees that a large part of the job is advising the state government, he said Wednesday that the primary role is to be an advocate for the people of Washington.

“It’ll be my obligation to make sure that office is always in tune with how we improve people’s lives, how we advocate for them,” Brown said. 

Not proposing legislation would be a “fundamental missed opportunity,” he said, citing issues like the shortage of housing and increase in fentanyl deaths and gun violence as ones the attorney general can get involved in to help residents 

‘You’re not running against Bob Ferguson’

Throughout Wednesday’s debate, Serrano repeatedly criticized current Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s leadership. He said Ferguson pushed too heavily for legislation and called his excessive litigation through the consumer protection office an abuse of power.

Brown rebuked his opponent. “You’re not running against Bob Ferguson. You’re running against me, and we should focus on the differences between you and I.”

In response, Serrano said he was mentioning Ferguson because of how much Brown has praised his work. And Serrano said he wanted to emphasize how different his approach to the job would be from Ferguson’s.   

“The only reason I bring up Bob Ferguson is because Nick says he’s got a great legacy to uphold,” Serrano said. “I clearly don’t agree with that statement.” 

Divide over guns

Gun laws are a key area where the two candidates differ. 

Serrano is director and general counsel of the Silent Majority Foundation, a group that has repeatedly challenged Washington’s firearms restrictions. He is representing a gun shop owner fighting against the state’s ban on ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. He said Thursday people are looking to purchase guns to protect themselves.

“We cannot ban protection in Washington. That does not work,” he said. “I’ve continually advocated for individual rights, for the ability for the individual to protect him or herself, whether it’s individuals who are suffering from domestic violence, folks who are just walking out on the street. You can’t walk out on the street and always feel safe.”

Brown highlighted concerns about gun violence and suicide deaths. 

“This is an area where Pete and I could not disagree more. He has spent much of his career trying to undermine gun safety laws here in Washington state, passed by the people, passed by the Legislature. He is advocating for more guns, for more dangerous guns. He is advocating for more ammunition in our community,” Brown said. “I do not believe that is the answer.”

Brown said he is open to working with the Legislature on new gun safety laws. Serrano said he wants to make sure the Legislature is “understanding what its limitations are” in this policy area.

Tense exchange on those arrested in the Jan. 6 attack

Wednesday’s debate format allowed candidates to quiz each other with one question. Brown used the opportunity to ask Serrano about a past comment in which he described rioters arrested at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as “political prisoners.”  

Serrano said it was clear that the arrest of those charged with insurrection was a “political process” where those people were held “on political charges” without access to counsel. 

“That is a fundamental right that the government should be protecting,” Serrano said. “The government absolutely failed those individuals.” 

In his response, Brown said he does not understand how the actions of those charged with assaulting a police officer or interrupting democracy can be considered “political.” 

Abortion is another dividing line

Washington is known for its strong legal protections for those seeking abortions and those providing reproductive services. 

Serrano, a social conservative, said he would not seek to unwind or overturn existing statutes because voters put them in place by initiative.

“This has been a settled question since 1970. So there’s no reason that I would go and undo what’s been done,” he said Thursday. Unless the Legislature or voters make a change in the future “my job is to protect what’s protected,” he added.

When pressed if he would sue the federal government to preserve access to mifepristone – which Ferguson has done – Serrano said he would. Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion.

That surprised Brown.

“That’s the first time that he said that. I applaud you for taking that stand,” said Brown, who later in the debate said his opponent would not defend what’s on the books.

Last year, the Legislature passed a “shield law” that protects patients from criminal investigations in their home states if they travel to Washington for abortion care. Violators of Washington’s law could be sued by the state’s attorney general.

Brown vowed to enforce it. “We need to protect people within our state, whether they are lifelong residents, whether they’re tourists, or they’re coming here for health care services that they have a right to have. Just because the state of Idaho has changed their abortion laws, I’m not going to stop protecting women who come here for the health care that they need and deserve.”

Serrano said he struggles with the notion of taking steps to impede other states from carrying out their laws.

“We have 50 states that have the ability to legislate as they see fit. The notion that we would try to undo legislation from another state, I think that puts us in a real predicament. Why wouldn’t those states seek to undo our laws? I cannot stand for that.”

The Standard’s editor, Bill Lucia, contributed to this report.