The attorney for the Neighbors United for Progress, Ric Jacobs, and Prosecuting Attorney C. Dale Slack both gave statements in the Sepember 20 hearing before Court Commissioner Julie Karl.

"We're also here because of the misguided efforts of Proposition 2 sponsors to effect a book ban in Columbia County," began Attorney Ric Jacobs, in an opening statement. "The sponsors first parroted the talking points of extreme right groups like Moms for Liberty, and fabricated details about the only public library this county has and its director trying to ban books. When they realized their views were not shared, were patently unconstitutional, they resorted to the nuclear option: they defamed the library director, chased him out of town and then they made an end run around the First Amendment to close the library."

Jacobs pointed out that no objection to the suits contentions has been filed. Jacobs also noted that the Attorney General's office was properly served and chose not to appear in this matter, which the court can take for what it is.

"I want to make entirely clear what the County's part in this suit is," said Prosecuting Attorney C. Dale Slack, in his address to the court. "And since we have a very large audience today I'm grateful for that because I think there's a lot of confusion about what the County's job and my job is hearing before this court in this suit.

"It's entirely clear under state law and the state constitution that when the legislature passes a statute, we presume that that statute is constitutional until a court overrules a statute and finds it to be unconstitutional.

"And out of the millions of cases that say this, I'm going to cite Heavey v. Murphy-a statute is presumed constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

"So from the County's perspective, we receive the ballot measure, we look at the statute, we say 'okay. The statute says this is how that initiative or measure comes to us. We follow the statute. We say an individual has brought us this petition. It appears to follow the wording of the statute so we are going to put it on the ballot.

"It is absolutely improper for my office, for the Auditor's office, or any other elected county official to say at that point 'Well, I think the statute has some problems so I'm not going take this petition and I'm not going to put it on the ballot.'

"We cannot do that. A court has to tell us not to do that.

"Additionally, the County has absolutely no standing or authority to challenge the constitutionality of a statutes unless it is directly damaged by the statute and can prove that in court. The county cannot even bring a challenge to a statute if it thinks that its citizens will be harmed by the statute.

"And one of the many cases that says that is Stevens County v. Stevens County Sheriff's Department.... A county has no standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute on behalf of their parties, even their citizens.

"So the county has not in this case taken a position on the constitutionality of the statute, even though we had reservations and had asked for guidance from the Attorney General's Office.

"It's very clear constitutionally and statutorily and from the case law that a county prosecuting attorney does not have the authority to defend the constitutionality of a statute or challenge it when the county itself is not directly damaged by the application of that statute.

"In addition, under Camp Finance v. Brazington et al...the attorney general is the individual who is responsible for defending the constitutionality of a statute because that is in the interest of the state as a whole, and it doesn't individual counties or its defendants again, unless they have standing to challenge it under the criteria that is set forth in Stevens County.

"So, I want to make it totally clear to the court, everybody who is here today, the County has no authority, no standing, and it would be extremely improper for the County to either keep this initiative off the ballot or to defend it before this court because we do not have the legal or constitutional authority to do so.

"My clients are the Count writ large, and the individuals who work in the Auditor's Office making ballots for the election.

"In doing my due diligence in representing the County writ large and the Auditor's Office, I need to make sure that their rights are protected, and that they are protected from any damage through this suit, and the way in which that is done is what I have been doing, which is showing up to court and say 'We have a statute, the County defendants have followed the statute, if there is a problem with that statute, then we need this court to tell us that there is a problem.

"I can wonder and guess all day until I am blue in the face whether this is a good statute or not, but at the end of the day nobody cares what I think, and nobody should because it's not my constitutional duty to tell anybody whether the statute is constitutional or not. That is solely the duty of this court.

"If this court believes that this statute is running afoul of the constitutional provisions which have been cited, then it is the duty of this court then to take that and run with it and tell us that the statute is unconstitutional and we should not be following it.

"From the case law perspective, the constitutional perspective, the statutory perspective, of which I've just outlined, as well as regulations dealing with the ethics of elected public officials, which very clearly state that neither I nor any elected official can use their offices to take a position on any political issue. That would be grounds for my removal from office, in fact.

"That's the county's position, your honor. And that is all I'm allowed to do," he said.