Posted in light of DC’s move towards elected its Attorney-General.
Personally, I think not - Attorneys-General work best when they have some isolation from public opinion. AGs sometimes have to do unpopular things - defend unpopular state laws before the state or federal Supreme Court, for example. Or direct prosecutors to drop charges against widely disliked defendants. Isolation from a relatively ill-informed public opinion can be helpful there. On the other hand, AGs appointed by governors can be subject to the whims of those governors - we saw this at the federal level with Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre”, for example.
Personally, I think the best approach would be to give state AGs a degree of isolation from both the public and governors - appoint them to fixed terms, staggered so as not to coincide with gubernatorial elections.
It’s a traditionally elected office in my state, and actually more powerful, in some ways, than the Governor. Seems to me that the job is political in nature–essentially setting policy for a team of government lawyers, determining how to allocate existing resources to meet the duties of the agency, adjusting priorities…that kind of thing. The bulk of the actual legal work is done by other attorneys working in that office. I think the AG’s should be answerable to the people they serve, and having them stand for election is one way to accomplish that.
Judges are the ones that actually need some insulation from political agendas–sadly, in my state, Judges are also elected officials.
I’ve always wondered why county sheriffs are elected but city police chiefs are not. They have essentially the same job.
IMO, elections, being (ideally) the conduit by which the political will of the people is translated into public policymaking, should be limited to offices where we want politics to play a role in decisionmaking. That applies to city councils and county commissions; but not to purely ministerial executive offices, where what counts most should be experience, knowledge and technical expertise.
Sheriffs are law enforcement officers in places where there’s no other police, but they also serve other functions. They’re in charge of serving court papers and carrying out foreclosures, issue gun permits and other administrative things, and in a lot of places, collect county taxes.
The other difference, of course, is that sheriff is usually an established legal office in the laws and state constitutions, and police chief isn’t…the police chief is an employee hired by the mayor/city council.
It’s by the National Association of Sheriff’s, so obviously it comes down on the “It’s good they’re elected” position, but it gives 4 reasons that they think it’s good.
It’s a check on the other county elected officials.
The sheriff is the most powerful countywide official, and the people should have the right to directly elect him.
In those cases where sheriffs have been appointed by county commissioners, there’s a decrease in quality and more politicization.
There’s no evidence that appointed police chiefs are more efficient, inventive, or cost effective than sheriffs.
For the record, the Attorney General is an elective office on the ballot in 43 states. In Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wyoming, he is appointed by the Givernor. In Maine, he is elected by the State Legislature, and in Tennessee, he is appointed by the State Supreme Court.