Another wrong judgement by the Washington Post: an elected Attorney General is a good idea and should be supported

I was pleased to see last year that Councilman Phil Mendelson put forward legislation to have the DC Attorney General (whose role is more circumscribed than the typical position elsewhere, as both local and federal criminal acts in the city are prosecuted by the Federal District Attorney's Office, which is the only instance nationally where this is the case) elected by the people, rather than serve as a position appointed by the Mayor.

From Wikipedia:

In the federal government of the United States, the Attorney General is a member of the Cabinet and as head of the Department of Justice is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. The attorney general may need to be distinguished from the Solicitor General, a high Justice Department official with the responsibility of representing the government before the Supreme Court. In cases of exceptional importance, however, the Attorney General may choose to represent the government himself or herself to the Supreme Court.

The individual U.S. states and territories, as well as the Federal capital of Washington, D.C. also have attorneys general with similar responsibilities. The majority of state attorneys general are chosen by popular election, as opposed to the U.S. Attorney General who is a presidential appointee.

If you read social psychology, there is a research thread on what is called boundary spanning, people whose place/position in life requires them to serve multiple constituencies simultaneously.

As Peter Nickles has proven, serving as Attorney General, it is very easy for the AG to serve the Executive Branch and politics, while underserving the simultaneous role of the Attorney General for representing and serving the people.

See "Bond between D.C. mayor and city's attorney general has grown stronger through the years" from the Post and "Vincent Gray Calls For AG Peter Nickles To Resign" from the Washington City Paper. A quote from Vincent Gray is in the City Paper article:

"'Two years ago, I voted to confirm Peter Nickles as Attorney General, with a belief and trust that he would put the interests of the people first, as required by D.C. law. There is no question about the fact that the Attorney General’s client is the District of Columbia, not the Mayor. That’s what the Office of the General Counsel to the Mayor is for. The Attorney General is supposed to be the people’s lawyer.
Unfortunately, it’s become increasingly clear that Peter Nickles not only sees himself as the Mayor’s lawyer, but also as the Mayor’s political hatchet man, and enabler of the Mayor’s cronyism. His politicization of the office is inappropriate at best, and illegal at worst. And by protecting the Mayor’s cronies, he has put the interest of the Mayor squarely ahead of the interest of his actual client. He has betrayed the public trust too many times to be an effective public advocate. Mayor Fenty should relieve him of his duties immediately.'"

But the Post, for the most part, has been advocating positions that limit and restrict democracy. I have argued before that the reason for this is that the Post has done investigative journalism for years about DC and Prince George's County transgressions and for the most part nothing happens. So they've become fed up and the editorial page promulgates positions that favor democratic authoritarianism.

Such is the case with today's editorial: "A referendum to reject : The case against an elected D.C. attorney general."

The argument is pretty specious, that the people running for office would have to raise a lot of money, and it would make them subject to special interests.

While this is in fact an issue, the reality is that for the most part Attorneys General in other "states" are more activist and involved in representing the people, taking up consumer fraud, the people's interest in nonprofit management of organizations, and other issues.

The AG position is one of the most prestigious in all of government, and it is likely that good people would vie for the job and would balance the sometimes conflicting roles of representing government and representing "the people."

-- National Association of Attorneys General

Once again, the Post is wrong.

Vote in favor of creating an elected Attorney General in the District of Columbia.
-------
Note that for a few years, I have also advocated that the U.S. Attorney General also be elected separately, rather than appointed by the President with confirmation by the Senate. Again, the Department of Justice ought to have two masters, the people, and the Executive Branch.