Elected AG in DC

[jsteele]

What are people's views on having an elected Attorney General in DC? A referendum on this question is included on the General Election ballot. I have generally been in favor of making the AG position an elected office. However, I've recently rethought my position and I'm now leaning against it.

My current thinking is that since running for the AG office would require raising campaign funds, appealing to various constituencies, and all the other trappings of an election campaign, the office would become overly politicized. It would just be one more stepping stone on the road to DC Mayor. Many of the best potential AG candidates might not want to deal with the hassles of campaigning. I was struck during the recent primaries by the low quality of DC election candidates. I was not overly impressed with either major mayoral candidate (or the minor ones for that matter) and don't get me started on the Council Chair candidates. I'm not sure DC would well-served by one more choice between mediocre candidates.

The biggest argument in favor of an elected AG is Peter Nickles. Nickles demonstrates all that is wrong with an appointed AG. He acted more as the mayor's personal lawyer than the City's legal representative. However, I think the threat posed by people like Nickles can be better alleviated via the Council confirmation process. The Council should not have confirmed Nickles. Had the Council performed it's duty, Nickles would never have been a problem. Rather than resorting to electing an AG, we should pressure the Council to take its confirmation role more seriously.

While I am leaning against the referendum, I'm still open-minded on the topic and would welcome hearing other views.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for bringing this up, Jeff. I would really like to hear people's views on it. When I first heard about this some time ago, I was in favor of electing the AG but now I'm not so sure. I'm thinking of some of the mediocre lawyer types who have run for mayor or council and I wonder if they would run for AG.

On the other hand, a mayor could appoint a devious AG like Peter Nickles or an incompetent AG so maybe it would be better if we could vote the AG out.

On the third hand, I was opposed to the mayoral takeover of the schools but I can see now that rather than having a school board pulled a million ways by ward-based voters so that it seems impossible to move forward that it allows us to hold one person, the mayor, accountable -- which we did in the last election.

So I'm completely undecided. I'd like to hear people's thoughts!

[Anonymous]

I was planning to vote for the election of AG. But this discussion has made me think about it some more. I can see pluses and minuses on both sides.

I think the example of Nickles (and the fact that he was probably one of the reasons Fenty lost) may induce future mayors and councils to act more responsibly. However, the vast majority of states have elected AGs, so that approach appears to be quite viable.

That leaves me joining those who would like to hear more rather than giving anyone much help in making a decision. But, on the positive side, I don't think I insulted either of the PPs, which, in this forum, should get me a pat on the back.

[Anonymous]

Nickles was/is an amazing AG. I know he's not a lunatic liberal so he rubs a lot of DC liberals dislike him but I think he did a pretty good job.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Nickles was/is an amazing AG. I know he's not a lunatic liberal so he rubs a lot of DC liberals dislike him but I think he did a pretty good job.

Fine. But do you support an elected AG or not?

[Anonymous]

Oh yeah I forgot to answer the question. I support an elected AG. Despite the fact that we may get a few horrible candidates and thus AGs the will of the people must be respected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah I forgot to answer the question. I support an elected AG. Despite the fact that we may get a few horrible candidates and thus AGs the will of the people must be respected.

I certainly agree that the will of the people should be respected, but I think it is repected under either system, since the Mayor answers to the voters for his choice of AG (among other things). In a representative democracy, the people vote directly for some things and delegate others to the elected officials. I don't think there is a matter of principle here, just the practical question of whether this is one of those things voters decide directly, as in 43 states, or one they delegate, as in the other states. The question is which will work best here, and I doubt there is any way to predict.

BTW, I don't think the objections to Nickles were liberal vs conservative issues, but questions of whom the AG is supposed to serve.

[Anonymous]

I was the one who posted earlier about Nickles being a pretty good AG (IMO). I think that some people are afraid that majority of people in DC( you know where I'm going here) are not informed and educated enough to pick a competent AG (after all they continuously voted for Barry) and thus they'll vote in a panderer who wont serve the interest of a 21st century DC. That may happen but I know many people in Arlington and Fairfax that hate Ken Cuccinelli and everything he stands for however the will of Virginia was respected.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I was the one who posted earlier about Nickles being a pretty good AG (IMO). I think that some people are afraid that majority of people in DC( you know where I'm going here) are not informed and educated enough to pick a competent AG (after all they continuously voted for Barry) and thus they'll vote in a panderer who wont serve the interest of a 21st century DC. That may happen but I know many people in Arlington and Fairfax that hate Ken Cuccinelli and everything he stands for however the will of Virginia was respected.

My fear is not that the voters are stupid -- something I don't believe -- but that the best candidates for the job won't bother to run. Moreover, the necessary qualifications are no longer legal ability and intelligence but become charisma, fund-raising ability (and/or personal wealth), and ambition. Also, what if the process were hijacked by a single-issue candidate? For instance, let's say someone runs who only cares about making same-sex marriage illegal and somehow manages to get himself elected. Yet, the Mayor and the Council support same-sex marriage. Then, you have four years of in-fighting about that. Cuccinelli is an example of voters making what I consider a bad choice, but it's likely that the Governor might actually appointed Cuccinelli or someone like him. But, what if the current Governor were a liberal Democrat and was stuck with Cuccinelli? That would be an almost unworkable situation.

I grew up in a state that has an elected AG. That experience is one reason I generally favor the referendum. But, the more I've thought about it, the more I've realize that the dynamics of elections in DC are much different than in states that are normally geographically much larger and have multiple population centers. So, I'm still not sure about which way to go. The Post opposes an elected AG. So, that's one reason to support it.

[Anonymous]

12:45 again.

Hmmm -- let's think about what having one more elected position might mean for the District which has a dearth of elected positions. Always a problem for us given that there aren't Senators/Governor and other State positions to move on to. Would it make it more likely that good people would stay in the District to pursue their political careers because there would be more options?

Or just make it more likely that mediocre people would run?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:12:45 again.

Hmmm -- let's think about what having one more elected position might mean for the District which has a dearth of elected positions. Always a problem for us given that there aren't Senators/Governor and other State positions to move on to. Would it make it more likely that good people would stay in the District to pursue their political careers because there would be more options?

Or just make it more likely that mediocre people would run?

Historically, the path to upward mobility in DC politics was school board -> Council -> Mayor. Not that it ever really worked that way, but that was the idea. Then, half the elected school board positions were eliminated and the remaining positions were neutered. So, the path now seems to be ward CM -> At Large CM -> Mayor, which might be what Harry Thomas is thinking. Pat Mara looks like he wants to go school board -> At-Large CM, which is probably as far as he can go as a Republican. With an elected AG, I definitely think the position becomes a major stepping stone toward Mayor. One name that keeps coming up is David Catania. I could see a successful term or two as AG helping to give him a shot at Mayor. Bill Lightfoot supported an elected AG in opposition to Nickles and the Post editorial board. I wonder if he is looking at the position as well? So, the question would be are candidates such as Catania and Lightfoot better than the possible appointees?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:45 again.

Hmmm -- let's think about what having one more elected position might mean for the District which has a dearth of elected positions. Always a problem for us given that there aren't Senators/Governor and other State positions to move on to. Would it make it more likely that good people would stay in the District to pursue their political careers because there would be more options?

Or just make it more likely that mediocre people would run?

Historically, the path to upward mobility in DC politics was school board -> Council -> Mayor. Not that it ever really worked that way, but that was the idea. Then, half the elected school board positions were eliminated and the remaining positions were neutered. So, the path now seems to be ward CM -> At Large CM -> Mayor, which might be what Harry Thomas is thinking. Pat Mara looks like he wants to go school board -> At-Large CM, which is probably as far as he can go as a Republican. With an elected AG, I definitely think the position becomes a major stepping stone toward Mayor. One name that keeps coming up is David Catania. I could see a successful term or two as AG helping to give him a shot at Mayor. Bill Lightfoot supported an elected AG in opposition to Nickles and the Post editorial board. I wonder if he is looking at the position as well? So, the question would be are candidates such as Catania and Lightfoot better than the possible appointees?

If either Harry Thomas or Kwame Brown become mayor I'm definitely moving. I do like Councilmember Bowser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... I do like Councilmember Bowser.

Although I did not support her when she first ran, I have been favorably impressed by her service. I am hoping that the departure of Fenty will allow her to grow in independence. I could see her one day as a credible mayoral candidate.

[Anonymous]

The AG's office (from back in the days when it was Corp. Counsel) has had a troubled history, and the last thing it needs now is to be run by a political hack. And if it's an elected position, you can bet that's what we'll end up with -- a hack, not a good lawyer.

[jsteele]

In case anyone is wondering which way I ended up going on this, I voted yesterday and supported the referendum. I"m still not sure it was the correct choice, but in the end I had more faith in those who endorsed the referendum than those who opposed it (eg: the Washington Post Editorial Board).