Virginians are well aware of the many policy positions that make Ken Cuccinelli too extreme to serve on the Supreme Court or in any other position where he can impact peoples’ lives ever again. But they may not be as aware of the fact that, during his time as Virginia’s Attorney General and as a lawyer in private practice, Cuccinelli failed almost every major legal pursuit he undertook.
It’s bad enough that Cuccinelli used his taxpayer-funded office to drive his extremist agenda, but it’s worse that he demonstrated such incompetence in doing so. If Republicans have their way, they will elect a Justice who is way outside the Virginia mainstream and who is, quite simply, a bad lawyer.
Over the coming hours, DPVA will highlight different reasons why
Cuccinelli would be a damaging choice for Virginia's Supreme Court.
Other reasons Cuccinelli is unfit for the bench:
#1: Cuccinelli's record on women's health
#2: Cuccinelli's record on LGBT issues
#3: Cuccinelli's multiple conflict of interest scandals
Here is a sampling of Cuccinelli's bad lawyering:
Columnist: “When It Comes To Actually Practicing Real Law…Cuccinelli Is A Bit Of A Disaster”
In September 2011, Stephzanie Mencimer wrote in Mother Jones: “But Cuccinelli seems to have studied the Constitution the way most tea partiers have—in someone's living room. Because when it comes to actually practicing law, in real courts where the Constitution is really put to the test, Cuccinelli is a bit of a disaster.” [Mother Jones, column, 9/8/11]
Cuccinelli Lost Healthcare Appeal, Fuel Efficiency Suit, UVA Scientist Case
In August 2013 the Roanoke Times reported, “The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his case against the Affordable Care Act, saying he had not demonstrated Virginia had legal standing in the matter. A federal appeals court in Washington rejected his argument against new federal fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. A state circuit court rejected his effort to pursue a former University of Virginia climate researcher for fraud.” [Roanoke Times, 8/11/13]
University Of Richmond Law Professor: I’m Disturbed By Lack of Attention to Running the Office
In August 2013 the Roanoke Times reported that University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias “said he’s been disturbed by what seem to him to be signs of a lack of attention to running the office.” [Roanoke Times, 8/11/13]
University of Richmond Law Professor: Cuccinelli Spent His Time On “Costly, Expensive Cases” And “He Lost Most Of Them”
In August 2013 the Roanoke Times reported: “It was through this part of the office that Cuccinelli launched several high profile lawsuits that critics have said were politically motivated. Gottstein said those cases are handled by staff on hand as part of their regular duties and that Cuccinelli did not hire lawyers especially for that work. Some have been skeptical of that effort. ‘Those were costly, expensive cases,’ Tobias said. ‘And he lost most of them.’” [Roanoke Times, 8/11/13]
CUCCINELLI'S LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMACARE: FAILED
Roanoke Times Editor: “You’d Think [Cuccinelli] Would Have Checked The Case Law Before Embroiling Virginia” In Health Care Lawsuit
In March 2010, Dan Radmacher, editorial editor of the Roanoke Times, criticized Cuccinelli’s legal argument against the federal health care law as out of touch with even “most conservative legal experts.” He wrote, “Cuccinelli is a lawyer, and you'd think he would have checked the case law before embroiling Virginia in what will likely be a time-consuming and expensive legal case that could well go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- and which he almost certainly will lose. Such a review of the case law would have shown Cuccinelli that the commerce clause has been interpreted quite broadly in the past. The case law, in fact, is so clear that most conservative legal experts doubt lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate have even a remote chance of success.” [Roanoke Times, opinion, 3/28/10]
Federal Appeals Court Unanimously Struck Down Cuccinelli’s Lawsuit, Ruled Cuccinelli Case Did Not Have Standing
In September 2011, the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted to strike down the previous federal court ruling in favor of Cuccinelli’s lawsuit against the federal health care law. The AP reported, “They ruled 3-0 that Cuccinelli did not have legal standing to file his lawsuit, which had argued the federal law conflicts with a state law that says no Virginian can be forced to buy insurance.” [AP, 9/08/11]
HEADLINE: “Health Care Ruling Takeaway: Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli Is A Bad Lawyer” [Mother Jones, column, 9/8/11]
Columnist: Court Ruling On Health Care Is “A Classic Example Of Something Cuccinelli Should Have Learned In Civil Procedure 101”
In September 2011, Stephanie Mencimer wrote in Mother Jones: “Today, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, threw out Cuccinelli's lawsuit challenging Obama's Affordable Care Act and its individual mandate. The 4th Circuit never really got to the constitutional issues of the health care law because it found that Cuccinelli and the state of Virginia did not even have standing to bring the case. The individual mandate, the court found, ‘imposes no obligations on the sole plaintiff, Virginia,’ meaning that Virginia had no injury nor future harm that might be remedied by the intervention of a federal judge. It's a classic example of something Cuccinelli should have learned in Civil Procedure 101: Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you have the right to go to court and get it struck down. You have to be affected by the law somehow, and it was clear from the very beginning that Cuccinelli and Virginia were not.” [Mother Jones, column, 9/8/11]
Washington Post Editorial Criticized Cuccinelli for Bringing Health Care Lawsuit that Didn’t Even Have Standing
In September 2011, an editorial in the Washington Post criticized Cuccinelli after his health care lawsuit was tossed out of appeals court for lack of legal standing.
The editorial read, “Before a plaintiff can proceed with a lawsuit, he must show he has been harmed and that the entity he is suing is responsible. Other challenges to the health-care law - including those filed by other states - have included individuals and groups that would be directly affected by the federal program. Mr. Cuccinelli eschewed that approach.” [Washington Post Editorial, 9/09/11]
Washington Post Editorial: Health Care Law “Ripe for Supreme Court Review” but Not the “Silliness” of Cuccinelli’s Arguments
In September 2011 the Washington Post editorialized, “The case is ripe for Supreme Court review. We believe the mandate to be constitutional and hope the high court agrees. But it is important that the justices focus on weighing this issue without getting sidetracked by the technical and jurisdictional silliness that plagues the Virginia case.” [Washington Post Editorial, 9/09/11]
Cuccinelli's Crusade To Keep Sodomy A Crime: Failed
Cuccinelli Warned Against Homosexual Agenda To “Dismantle Sodomy Laws”
In February 2004, the Washington Times reported, “Mr. Cuccinelli and others worry recent protests on the topic are part of an overall strategy by homosexuals, who he thinks plan to ‘dismantle sodomy laws’ and ‘get education about homosexuals and AIDS in public schools.’” [Washington Times, 2/19/04]
HEADLINE: Top Va. Republican urges court to keep anti-sodomy law on the books [NBC News First Read, 4/3/13]
In April 2013, NBC News reported, “Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) is urging a federal appeals court to overturn a three-judge panel's decision to declare an anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The Washington Blade reports that Cuccinelli filed a formal ‘petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state's sodomy law. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia's 'Crimes Against Nature' statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas.’” [NBC News First Read, 4/3/13]
Cuccinelli Challenged 4th Circuit Court Ruling Declaring Virginia’s Sodomy Laws Unconstitutional
In April 2013, the Washington Post reported: “Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has challenged a recent court ruling finding Virginia’s anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The appeal has gotten national attention as Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial bid ramps up. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled on March 12 that Virginia’s “Crimes Against Nature” statute, which banned oral and anal sex, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One judge dissented, agreeing with a lower court that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas on sodomy laws applied only to consenting adults.” [Washington Post, 4/3/13]
Columnist: Cuccinelli Should Focus On Changing Virginia’s Consent Laws, “Not Defending A Law That The Supreme Court Has Said Is Indefensible”
In April 2013, Kate Sheppard wrote in Mother Jones: “If Cuccinelli's concern is sex with minors, he should focus on changing Virginia's age of consent rules, not defending a law that the Supreme Court has said is indefensible. But in 2004, when a bipartisan group of Virginia legislators tried to change the law so that it would only apply to public sex, sex with minors, and prostitution, Cuccinelli opposed the bill.” [Mother Jones, column, 4/4/13]
Cuccinelli’s Petition To Reinstate Virginia’s Sodomy Law Was Denied By Federal Court
In April 2013, the Washington Blade reported: “The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond issued an order on Monday denying a petition by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state’s sodomy law. In an action that surprised some court observers, the order says none of the court’s judges requested a poll among themselves to determine which, if any of them, favored Cuccinelli’s request for an en banc rehearing of the sodomy case by the court’s 15 active judges and one senior judge.” [Washington Blade, 4/9/13]
Cuccinelli Filed Appeal To The U.S. Supreme Court In Order To Preserve Virginia’s Sodomy Laws
In June 2013, the Washington Post reported: “Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II filed an appeal Tuesday to the U.S. Supreme Court aimed at preserving Virginia’s anti-sodomy law. Cuccinelli, a Republican running for governor, asked the court to overturn a March decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down the law, which had been used in 2005 to convict a 47-year-old man of soliciting oral sex from a 17-year-old girl.” [Washington Post, 6/25/13]
Cuccinelli Acknowledged That Sodomy Laws Had Been Struck Down By 2003 Supreme Court Decision, But Defended Virginia’s Anyway
In June 2013, the Washington Post reported: “Cuccinelli acknowledged that since the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision, the law cannot be used against consenting adults engaged in private sex acts. But he said the law remains a useful tool for prosecutors seeking to obtain felony convictions against sexual predators. Without the sodomy statute, a simple solicitation charge would have been a misdemeanor, according to Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia.” [Washington Post, 6/25/13]
Cuccinelli Asked U.S. Supreme Court To Stay Lower Court’s Decision To Strike Down Virginia’s Sodomy Law
In July 2013, the AP reported: “Virginia's attorney general is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a lower court's decision striking down the state's anti-sodomy law while the case is on appeal.
Chief Justice John Roberts has asked the other side for a response by next Monday. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared Virginia's law against oral and anal sex unconstitutional in March. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli appealed the panel's 2-1 ruling to the Supreme Court in June.” [AP, 7/29/13]
Fairfax Times: Cuccinelli Should Lay Aside Pet Projects --- “Sodomy Laws, Fighting Climate Change And Science Etc. To Deal With Substantial Tax Dollars That Might Be Owed To State”
According to the Fairfax Times “ One would think Mr. Cuccinelli would lay aside some of his other pet projects — protecting archaic sodomy laws, fighting climate change scientists, worrying about the constitutionality of laws that the Supreme Court has vetted and approved — and devote a bit more time and attention to substantial tax dollars that might be owed to the state. One would, apparently, be wrong on both counts.” [Fairfax Times, 4/26/13]
Richmond Times-Dispatch Criticized Cuccinelli’s “Javert-Like” Defense Of Virginia’s Sodomy Law
In September 2013 the Richmond Times Dispatch published an editorial, which said, “Nevertheless, Cuccinelli continues, Javert-like, to argue for the sodomy law – and has taken his appeal to the Supreme Court. He even asked the high court to stay the 4th Circuit’s ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts said no. In the sodomy case, the AG plows mulishly ahead in the face of repeated judicial rebuffs. Yet in the schools case, he is refusing to defend a new statute against lawsuits that have not yet even been filed. The two cases present quite a contrast – and a highly unflattering one at that.” [Richmond Times Dispatch, 9/6/13]
Cuccinelli's Lawsuit Against University Of Virginia: Failed (And Cost Uva $600k)
Column: “Latest” Controversial Cuccinelli Move was Subpoena of all Documents Related to Former UVA Professor’s Research Grants
In May 2010, Dan Casey wrote for the Roanoke Times “The latest happened a little more than a week ago at the University of Virginia. In a type of subpoena called a "Civil Investigative Demand" issue to UVa, the AG's office demanded all documents related to five state-funded climate research grants at UVa, dating back more than a decade, that total just under $500,000.” [Dan Casey, Roanoke Times, 5/04/10]
Column: Mann “Already Cleared of Research Improprieties”
He wrote, “Mann also was one of a handful of scientists who devised a hotly debated hockey stick-shaped graph that reconstructed global temperatures dating back centuries. It suggests an alarming increase in global temperatures over the past 100 years. Already Mann has been cleared of research improprieties by Penn State and the National Academy of Sciences.” [Dan Casey, 5/04/10]
Judge Ruled in favor of UVA—Cuccinelli Failed to Spell Out Mann’s Alleged Wrongdoing
In August 2010, the AP reported Judge Paul Peatross ruled in favor of UVA, noting that Cuccinelli failed to spell out how his requests pertained to Mann’s alleged wrongdoing, but the ruling left a path for Cuccinelli to try again.
The article read, “Virginia's attorney general has the authority to investigate whether a former University of Virginia climate-change re-searcher defrauded state taxpayers, but the prosecutor has failed so far to spell out what he suspects the professor did wrong, a judge ruled Monday. Retired Albemarle County Circuit Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. determined that the university can be subject to an investigation by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. But Peatross found that Cuccinelli's demands for researcher Michael Mann's records fail to spell out the nature of Mann's alleged wrongdoing.” [AP, 8/30/10]
Judge: Cuccinelli’s Purpose “Simply Not Stated”
“What the Attorney General suspects that Dr. Mann did that was false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth is simply not stated,” Peatross said in his ruling. [AP, 8/30/10]
Judge: Cuccinelli Provided No “Objective Basis” for Investigation
In August 2010, the Washington Post editorial board wrote, “Judge Peatross pointed out that the attorney general hadn't provided an ‘objective basis’ to conclude that the scientist did anything fraudulent.” [Washington Post Editorial, 8/31/10]
Judge Ruled That Cuccinelli Failed To Adequately Say What Mann Might Have Done Wrong And That He Lacked The Authority To Investigate
In January 2012, the AP reported: “A judge ruled that the Cuccinelli failed to adequately say what Mann might have done wrong, and that he lacked authority to investigate federal grants. ‘What the attorney general suspects that Dr. Mann did that was false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth is simply not stated,’ retired Albemarle County Circuit Judge Paul Peatross said in the August 2010 ruling.” [AP, 1/12/12]
Lower Court Denied Cuccinelli’s Request For Mann Research Because He “Presented Nothing To Back Up His Accusation”
In March 2012, the New York Times reported: “Mr. Cuccinelli since 2010 has sought to force the university to release documents for five grant applications made by the scientist, Michael E. Mann, and related e-mails, saying he suspected that Dr. Mann used fraudulent climate data to secure grants. A lower court also denied the request, saying Mr. Cuccinelli presented nothing to back up his accusation.” [New York Times, 3/3/12]
UVA Spent More Than Half A Million Dollars Defending Itself Against Cuccinelli’s Lawsuit
In March 2012, the Washington Post reported: “After two years and more than half a million dollars in legal fees, the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday rejected Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II's assertion that the state's flagship university had to turn over documents related to global warming.” [Washington Post, 3/3/12]
CUCCINELLI'S AMICUS BRIEF OVER THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: FAILED (AND INVOKED POLYGAMY?)
Cuccinelli Terminated Law Firm’s Contract With AG Office Over Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
In April 2011, Cuccinelli terminated his office’s contract with law firm King & Spalding after the firm dropped the House of Representatives as its client in a case supporting DOMA.
The article read, “Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ended his office's relationship with the law firm that earlier this week said it would not represent the House of Representatives in its case supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. In a letter to Atlanta-based King & Spalding, the state's top law enforcement official, a Republican, says that the firm's willingness to drop the House as a client in the DOMA case ‘was such an obsequious act of weakness’ that he sees the need to terminate Virginia's ties with the firm.” [Politico, 4/29/10]
Cuccinelli: Firm’s Refusal To Defense DOMA Was “An Obsequious Act Of Weakness”
In May 2011, the Washington Times reported: “Days earlier, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II also told the firm that its services were no longer needed for any state agency as long as he was in office. Dropping the DOMA contract ‘was such an obsequious act of weakness that I feel compelled to end your legal association with Virginia, so there is no chance that one of my legal clients’ will be similarly discarded, Mr. Cuccinelli wrote to King & Spalding official Joseph E. Lynch.” [Washington Times, 5/5/11]
Cuccinelli Led Amicus Brief to Federal DOMA Case that Argued Same Sex Marriage Could Lead to Polygamy
In January 2013, Cuccinelli and the Attorney General of Indiana Greg Zoeller led an amicus brief of nineteen states for Hollingsworth v. Perry in support of the petitioners. The brief stated, “Consequently, responsible parenting is not a justification for same-sex-couple marriage, as distinguished from recognition of any other human relationships. It is instead a rationale for eliminating marriage as government recognition of a limited set of relationships. Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage. See, e.g. , Jonathan Turley, One Big, Happy Polygamous Family , NY Times, July 21, 2011, at A27 (“[Polygamists] want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith.”).” [US Supreme Court, Hollingsworth v. Perry, Amicus Brief, 1/29/13]
Cuccinelli Was Forced To Recuse Himself Due To Star Scientific Conflict, Costing Taxpayers Almost $150k
Virginia Attorneys: Star Scientific Lawsuit Sat Dormant Unusual Amount Of Time
In March 2013, Politico ran an AP Story that reported “University of Richmond law school professor Carl Tobias said 19 months is a long time for a case to lie dormant in court without any action. “Usually one side or the other will move things along in cases like that,” he said. It’s not unprecedented, however, and doesn’t, by itself, indicate an impropriety, Tobias said. “I would think that maybe they’re negotiating a settlement to it,” he said. Paul Campsen, a private attorney in Norfolk for whom tax litigation is a specialty, said he seldom sees tax cases languish the way the Star Scientific lawsuit has. If plaintiffs don’t push them along, then the government to which the disputed tax bill is due usually moves more quickly to recover its money.” [Politico (AP), 3/22/13]
Attorney: Cuccinelli’s Handling Of Star Scientific Case “Looks Bad And Smells Bad”
In March 2013, Politico ran an AP Story that reported: “‘I think in a case like that, it’s probably better for the attorney general to step out of it,’ Tobias said. [Attorney Paul] Campsen said he believes the decision to step aside and hire outside counsel should have been an easy one for Cuccinelli, given his direct financial interest in the company. “To me this isn’t just the appearance of a conflict, it is a conflict of interest,” he said. “This looks bad and this smells bad.” [Politico (AP),3/22/13]
Cuccinelli Recused Himself From Star Scientific Tax Lawsuit After Facing Scrutiny Over Ties And Ownership Of $10,000 Worth of Stock In Star
According to the Daily Press, “Cuccinelli owns more than $10,000 worth of stock in Star Scientific, and after scrutiny of his ties to the company recused the attorney general’s office from the case and appointed outside counsel last week. The case has been ongoing with little action since August of 2011.” [Daily Press, 4/11/13]
Cuccinelli Withdrew Office From Cases Over Possible Conflicts Of Interest For Second Time In One Month
According to Politico, “Cuccinelli’s decision to withdraw from the case politically charged case just six months before November’s gubernatorial election marks the second time this month he has pulled his office out of a pending court case over possible conflicts of interest. On April 5, he withdrew his office as defense counsel for the Virginia Department of Taxation in a lawsuit filed by Henrico-based Star Scientific, Inc. That recusal came after reports that he had bought thousands of shares of stock in the troubled Virginia nutritional supplements maker and received thousands of dollars in personal gifts from its chief executive officer. At the time, Star Scientific was the only stock in Cuccinelli’s portfolio. He sold part of it last year, according to tax returns he released last week, and fully divested himself of the stock on April 12, his campaign said.” [Politico, 4/25/13]
Judge Cited Cuccinelli’s Conflict Of Interest In Granting Recusal Request
According to the Washington Examiner, “A Richmond judge decided Thursday to allow Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to recuse his office from an embezzlement case involving the governor’s former chef, Todd Schneider, citing Cuccinelli’s conflict of interest as the chief concern. Cuccinelli last month asked the court to recuse him and appoint a new prosecutor to go after Schneider, noting that a key witness, first lady Maureen McDonnell’s former chief of staff, Mary Shea Sutherland, helped Cuccinelli raise money for his gubernatorial campaign.” [Washington Examiner, 5/2/13]
After Cuccinelli’s Recusal, Lawyer Appointed To Defend McDonnell Billed State For $143,566 In Legal Fees
In September 2013, WWBT reported: “The public share of legal bills for representing Gov. Bob McDonnell in the case against the former chef at Virginia's Executive Mansion and other allegations grew by $90,036 in June. According to the Associated Press, June bills representing a total of 396 hours worked by former state Attorney General Anthony Troy and 12 other attorneys at the firm of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott bring the total to $143,566 counting the firm's previous bill for $53,530.” [WWBT, 9/5/13]
Virginia’s Newspapers Agree: Cuccinelli Shouldn't have been Attorney General And Run For Governor At The Same Time
HEADLINE: “Cuccinelli Should Step Down As AG” [Virginian-Pilot, 4/7/13]
Virginian-Pilot: Cuccinelli’s “Blindness” To Conflicts Of Interests Has Been “Devastating To The Confidence In The Office Of The Attorney General”
In April 2013, a Virginian-Pilot editorial stated: “The attorney general went nearly a year before disclosing his investment in Star Scientific. He recused his office only after news reports of his ties to the company were published. Cuccinelli's blindness to such conflicts is problematic for any candidate, but devastating to confidence in the office of the attorney general. That distrust is magnified when the officeholder is as preoccupied with distractions as Cuccinelli has been. Which underscores why he must go.” [Virginian-Pilot, editorial, 4/7/13]
Richmond Times Dispatch: Conflict Of Interest Scandals Have “Reached A Point That Justifies His Departure”
In May 2013, a Richmond Times Dispatch editorial stated: “The mess also has implications for Cuccinelli’s decision not to follow the Virginia tradition that calls for an attorney general to resign when he or she seeks the governorship. The ticklish complications allow critics to argue that Cuccinelli ought to step down. We, too, think this has reached a point that justifies his departure.” [Richmond Times Dispatch, editorial 5/23/13]
HEADLINE: “Cuccinelli Should Quit – Seriously” [Daily Progress, editorial, 4/2/13]
Daily Progress: “Virginians Deserve A Full-Time Attorney General”
In April 2013, a Daily Progress editorial stated: “However, questions about judgment do come into play. Someone with a more exquisite appreciation of these issues would have taken a different approach, to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. But even without the conflict-of-interest issue, there is good reason for Mr. Cuccinelli to resign. A long line of previous attorneys general have done exactly that, recognizing the difficulties of running a campaign while running the state’s top legal office. It’s tough to do both jobs well. Virginians deserve a full-time attorney general.” [Daily Progress, editorial, 4/2/13]
Daily Press Urged Cuccinelli To “Do The Right Thing” And Resign
In January 2012, the Daily Press issued an editorial that stated: “Now that he has begun aggressively pursuing a political campaign for governor, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should follow the lead of more than six decades of candidates in the commonwealth and do the right thing. He should resign.” [Daily Press, 1/10/12]
Daily Press: As AG, “One Would Expect Cuccinelli To Formulate Legal Decisions And Legislative Requests…Instead Of Issuing Knee-Jerk Responses To Daily Political Events”
In January 2012, the Daily Press issued an editorial that stated: “As the full-time chief attorney for the commonwealth, one would expect Cuccinelli to formulate legal decisions and legislative requests based on a thoughtful analysis of what is best in the long term for the people of Virginia, instead of issuing knee-jerk responses to daily political events. One would also expect the commonwealth's top-ranking lawyer to get advice on his agenda in advance, instead of after the fact.” [Daily Press, 1/10/12]
Daily Press: OAG Carried “Serious Responsibilities” But “Cuccinelli Had Already Decided To Move Onto Bigger Things”
In January 2012, the Daily Press issued an editorial that stated: “The Office of Attorney General carries serious responsibilities, including defending criminal appeals on behalf of the commonwealth, enforcing laws that protect consumers and collecting child support on behalf of children and families. The Attorney General oversees about 425 employees in its multiple divisions and departments. Yet less than two years after assuming office, Cuccinelli had already decided to move on to bigger things — a decision he is, of course, completely free to make. But he owes it to the people of Virginia and the integrity of the office to do it now.” [Daily Press, 1/10/12]
HEADLINE: “Cuccinelli Needs To Resign As Va. Attorney General” [Washington Post, editorial, 12/7/11]