| | | Norton advocates for elected D.C. attorney general | | November 23, 2009 |  | | | Staff Writer | | D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced legislation this month that would let city residents elect a district attorney for the first time.
The bill marks Norton’s latest attempt to establish an elected district attorney to prosecute local crimes, a responsibility that now lies mostly with the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a presidential appointee. Currently, the locally appointed D.C. attorney general has limited authority in matters of criminal law, relating only to juvenile cases, traffic infractions and adult misdemeanors; in contrast, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes all felony cases.
Norton submitted similar legislation in 2003, 2006 and 2007, and she considers the measure an important step toward achieving District independence from unique federal control.
“We’d like to have our own district attorney to prosecute our local crimes, just like they do in New York and the rest of the country,” Norton said in a recent interview.
In 2002, District residents overwhelmingly approved a referendum to establish an elected district attorney position. The D.C. Council then passed legislation to amend the city’s home rule charter accordingly, but Congress never approved the change.
Norton said her attempts to push for D.C. autonomy have been stymied by Republicans insisting on a host of amendments in hopes of killing her legislative initiatives.
“Republicans will try to use whatever’s happening in the city in the moment — as if democracy were dependent on the issues of the day — against me,” said Norton.
This time around, she hopes the current Democratically controlled Congress and White House will allow the bill’s passage.
In introducing the bill, Norton said: “There is no law enforcement issue of greater importance to our residents, or on which we have less say, than
the prosecution of local crimes here. A U.S. attorney has no business in the local criminal affairs of a local jurisdiction.”
Norton’s legislation would have little impact on the role of the city’s attorney general. That position is currently held by Peter Nickles, a controversial figure who has been in the middle of many of the recent battles between the D.C. Council and Mayor Adrian Fenty. For instance, to the consternation of council members, Nickles last month said that any past and current contracts awarded without the council’s consent were legal and binding.
Norton said she does not want to get involved in local debates, and only hopes to reduce the federal control over the city that she deems undemocratic.
Norton added that if D.C. council members or the mayor want to eliminate or alter the attorney general position, they would have to initiate that effort.
At-large Council member Phil Mendelson has done just that. Earlier this year, he submitted legislation that would allow residents to elect the city’s attorney general, rather than filling the position with a mayoral appointee approved by the council.
“[Norton’s] bill is different, and it’s not at odds with what we’re doing,” Mendelson said in a recent interview. “Her bill would take the local prosecutions out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
'
Mendelson said the district attorney and attorney general should remain separate.
“The attorney general would continue, because that position does the legal work for the District government, reviewing contracts, defending the District from lawsuits,” said Mendelson.
The attorney general also provides legal advice and opinions, drafts and reviews proposed legislation and rulemakings, and defends tax collections, among other duties.
Council members have criticized Nickles because they think he is inappropriately loyal to the mayor, an issue Mendelson believes his legislation would remedy.
“The attorney general is the city’s lawyer and has to be the city’s lawyer. The mayor has his own general counsel,” said Mendelson.
For his part, Nickles said he would support an elected district attorney for the city as well as an elected attorney general, though he believes the two offices could be combined.
“I think anything that contributes to the democratic process in the city is valuable,” Nickles said in a recent interview.
He added: “In most states, the attorney general is elected. ... But most times the attorney general is thinking about running for governor. He’s a separate, independent force. So whoever’s going to look at this is going to need to take into account whether they want an attorney general who is politically motivated.”
| | | | | Log in to comment on this article |
| |
|
