My understanding is that the State Land Board made the proposal. You are correct that school funding was the stated reason for the sale, and that the State Supreme Court shot it down. You're also correct that that isn't an instance where this was clearly partisan. I should've been more clear.
When I said "all such attempts" I was addressing the general pattern. If a politician is advocating for transferring management of federal lands to a state government, or selling off state lands that aren't profitable, and you guess that said politician is a Republican, you'll probably be right. The same way if a politician is advocating for extreme gun control proposals, and you guess that that politician is a Democrat, you'll almost always be right. That DOESN'T mean I think that all Republican elected officials are hostile to public lands. They aren't.
You're correct that the proposed sale of the Elliot wasn't a conservative deal per se, but a good portion of the opposition that got it stopped came from environmental groups whose membership I would have to guess skews left (groups other than BHA, whose membership demographics were posted earlier.) In this instance, though I'm sure I'd disagree with those people on plenty of other things, I'm glad the Elliot is still open to the public.
State lands needing to generate revenue is one of the main reasons I'm against transfer of federal lands to the states. My understanding is that some state governments are legally obligated to sell off state managed lands that don't generate a profit.
That's all good info you posted though. I should've qualified my statement better.