Troy King

Troy Robin King (born August 22, 1968) is the former attorney general of the state of Alabama.

He previously served as an assistant attorney general and a legal adviser to both Republican governors Bob Riley and Fob James.

King received his undergraduate degree from Troy University and is a 1994 graduate of the University of Alabama Law School.

King was appointed by Governor Bob Riley in 2004, when William Pryor resigned to accept a federal judgeship.

In January 2005, King filed a suit against 79 of the nation's leading pharmaceutical companies for defrauding the State Medicaid agency.

King accused the companies of misrepresenting and inflating wholesale drug costs charged to Alabama, costing hundreds of millions in overpayments by Alabama taxpayers.

King brought attention to the need for new laws requiring the tracking of released sex offenders by wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet (the kind used by parolees and others under judicial monitoring) during the 2005 Legislative Session.

He continued to wear the bracelet until the Legislature passed tougher laws requiring the monitoring of parolees and convicted sex offenders.

King made opposition to gambling a theme of his tenure.

In addition to prosecuting several local electronic gambling operations and introducing anti-gambling legislation in every session of the Legislature since becoming the attorney general, he also opposed gambling expansion for the Native American tribes in Alabama.

He then defeated Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr., in the 2006 election by a 54-46% margin.

He sought a second term but was defeated in the Republican primary, securing 40 percent of the vote to the roughly 60 percent by Luther Strange.

King was born in Elba, Alabama, where his father was a real estate agent.

King credits his interest in politics to being told at age 10 by his father that a canceled family vacation was the fault of President Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

He is a Baptist.

In 2006, King asked the United States Department of the Interior to deny an application by the Poarch Band of Creek Indians to expand their gaming operations in Alabama.

King later filed a lawsuit against the department to keep it from pressuring Alabama to permit video gaming on Alabama reservations.

In April 2008, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, allowing more than one pharmaceutical company to be tried at the same time in the proceedings, allowing the state to try the remaining cases faster.

While the state tried at least four cases and received favorable verdicts totaling several hundred million, and negotiated settlements of $89 million.

As of May 2009, King had won nearly $300 million in jury verdicts and settlements, on October 16, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the verdicts entered against the pharmaceutical companies and rendered judgment in their favor.

"The court ruled 8-1 that the state did not have to rely on the drug companies' information in deciding what prices to pay pharmacists for prescription drugs for Medicaid recipients. The justices said state officials could have done their own research and determined the correct price."

In 2009, however, King found himself in conflict with Alabama Governor Bob Riley.

Riley argued that there is no distinction between electronic bingo machines and slot machines, which are illegal in the state.

King has insisted that although he objects to any form of gambling, Alabama has approved several constitutional amendments which have legalized the machines.

King's office has issued an opinion in line with previous federal court rulings which establish that there can be an electronic version of common games, such as the card game, Solitaire, which can also be played on a computer.

On June 28, 2009, the Birmingham News reported that King did not reference findings from the National Indian Gaming Commission in his 2004 report on gambling, which stated that some of Alabama's electronic bingo machines appeared to be class three gambling devices.

King said that the only factors to consider are if the constitutional amendments approved by the citizens have legalized these machines, and whether the National Indian Gaming Commission considers the machines Class Three or Class Two is a federal designation and not relevant under Alabama law.

Riley said, "I think the reason it has expanded exponentially across the state is because the attorney general has given a legitimacy or creditability by saying he thinks it is legal, and he is wrong."

King said that to interpret the change of games from paper gambling to electronic gambling would be judicial activism.

The Birmingham News agreed with King that the best body to decide this matter is the state's legislature, but that body had been in a deadlock over the issue for years.

Both the governor and the attorney general filed briefs before the Alabama Supreme Court asking for a decision on the legality of the machines.

In November 2009 the Alabama Supreme Court released a decision on the Whitehall Bingo Case, establishing a six-point test for electronic bingo, thereby ruling that electronic bingo could exist in Alabama, but that is must meet the six-point test.

Both the attorney general and the governor had mixed reactions.

King felt the decision helped his position, but noted questions still lingered when he spoke to the Birmingham News: ""We have a clearer test.

We do not have a clear test." More cases are expected to be filed and everyone expects the battle for electronic bingo to continue. The next week, King issued a letter to the state's district attorneys, asking them to enforce the new test issued by the Supreme Court, saying he was confident that they would do so. More challenges and more lawsuits were expected and King reiterated his feeling that the only long term solution to gambling is for the Legislature to "give the people of Alabama the chance to vote yes or no."

On May 21, 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court handed down a finalized ruling that answered lingering questions in the gambling debate between King and Governor Riley.

The court's ruling had two components: first, that the governor does indeed maintain the constitutional authority to approve law enforcement actions without the approval of the attorney general, and second, that any law enforcement operation conceived and operated by the governor cannot be seized by the attorney general, and any previously seized operations must be immediately turned over to the governor's appointed special counsel.

The relevant section of the Supreme Court ruling states that "we hold that the actions of the attorneys and other officers authorized by Governor Riley to act in this case are not "nullities," despite the lack of approval by the attorney general and the district attorney, and that the attorney general may not take over or countermand the litigation efforts of those officers in either the trial court or in this Court. The counsel authorized by the governor have the right to represent the state in this case and to see it through to completion."

King is a staunch proponent of the death penalty.

When many states voluntarily suspended executions during U.S. Supreme Court litigation over lethal injection, King continued to seek setting execution dates in Alabama.