Elected AG in DC

[Anonymous]

Thanks for starting this discussion, Jeff. I really need to think about this!

[Anonymous]

I tend to think the AG should be appointed, for many of the reasons Jeff has articulated. There is accountability as the process stands - I have to beieve that part of the reason Fenty will no longer be the mayor is because of Nickles. And having a political hack in the AG slot has the potential to create all sorts of havoc.

As for the voters . . . well, maybe not stupid, but my faith in DC voters is something less than robust. And I know this is a tired example, but still a good one: Marion Barry still holds elected office in DC.

[Anonymous]

I voted yesterday and supported the referendum also. In the end, I was very concerned with who the AG is supposed to represent. I would prefer that the AG not be a good friend to the mayor, but an advisor. That being said, I think that the CFO's independence is a disaster, but we don't have the opportunity to vote him out.

[Anonymous]

I was all over the idea of an elected AG until I had a conversation on Saturday with my father-in-law. He's from a state with an elected AG, and feels that it's an office that shouldn't be politicized. I started to rant about how Nickels did politicize the office, and all the things he did that I disagreed with ... then realized that it was pretty stupid to base a change to the city charter simply on my low opinion of an official appointed by a mayor whom I also came to dislike.

I also like the points about an elected position attracting the wrong sort of candidate or preventing potentially good candidates from bothering to seek the position.

And another thanks to Jeff for starting this thread.

[jsteele]

According to this article, an anti-Gay minister is leading the campaign against an elected AG while good government types are leading the fight in favor of it:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/debonis/2010/11/last-minute_lobbying_on_electe.html