|
counsel are vastly different from those per-
formed by the attorney general, and he is
the chief legal officer for the entire State.
In the present Constitution there is a
provision which might be construed as pro-
hibiting the governor from hiring his own
private counsel without approval of the
General Assembly.
The minority, in its proposed draft, will
suggest the removal of this alleged pro-
hibition against the governor hiring his
own private counsel.
During the debate on the legislative arti-
cle we heard the argument that each
county should have a delegate to call its
own. During the debate on the judicial
article, we heard the argument that each
county should have a district and superior
judge to call its own.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, in debating
the executive article, we hear the argu-
ment that the governor should have a law-
yer he can call his own.
To put it bluntly, and with no intention
of humor or whimsy, I suggest to you that
if the governor is given authority to ap-
point the attorney general to serve at his
pleasure, that is exactly what he will get, a
lawyer he can call his own.
Now, this brings into focus the gut issue
for this Committee, and that is, should the
constitution provide for an appointed at-
torney general to serve at the pleasure of
the governor, or should the constitution
provide for a constitutionally elected at-
torney general to serve at the pleasure of
the people?
I suggest to you, fellow delegates, that
the constitution should provide for an inde-
pendent, constitutionally elected attorney
general, not a lawyer the governor can
call his alone, but a lawyer the people can
call their own.
The overwhelming weight of opinion in
other states favors the elected attorney
general. In support of this statement, I
will read from page 2 of the Minority Re-
port, lines 6 to 18:
"Forty of our sister states have a con-
stitutionally elected attorney general, and
two others have statutory provisions for
his election. Two of these, New York and
Michigan, recently had constitutional con-
ventions which .voted to retain the office as
a constitutionally elected one, thereby af-
firming the fact that such status is not
incompatible with modern efficient state
government. In two of the states where
the attorney general is not elected, Maine
|
and Alaska, it is interesting to note that
the incumbents have recommended that the
office not be an appointed one."
I would like to call to the attention of
this Committee a few comments from at-
torneys general of other states with respect
to the question of the elected attorney gen-
eral vis-a-vis the appointed attorney gen-
eral.
In the 1863 Michigan Convention, which
provided for an elected attorney general,
it was said — and I quote: "We favor the
election of the attorney general, the chief
law enforcement officer of the State. In a
representative government, appointment of
the chief law enforcement officer would
place him in a position of obligation which
would make his duties more difficult. If the
attorney general were appointed, he would
be subjected to the influences of the ap-
pointing authority. Presently he is able to
make an independent legal judgment, which
might differ from the political decisions of
other members of the executive branch.
"The governor has to make many deci-
sions. Many of them are political decisions.
I do not think that the best interests of
the State can be served if the attorney gen-
eral is appointed so that he must confirm
the political decisions of the governor. I
think that the people of the State of Michi-
gan have a right to the services of an at-
torney general who can say no when the
law and the interpretation of the law de-
mand that he say no."
The attorney general of Ohio stated:
"The attorney general's office should be
run as a law office, with a completely ob-
jective approach to the legal problems of
an administration, and should not be rele-
gated to a position of house counsel, find-
ing ways and means to support executive
policy. By being elected, the attorney gen-
eral is responsible only to the people of the
State, and this, to my way of thinking, is
as it should be."
The attorney general of Ohio commented :
"When you place the chief legal officer of
the State under the appointing power of
the governor, you rob him of the complete
independence that is his when elected by
the people. It is this very independence
which results in the fearless and efficient
administration of justice."
The Attorney General of Maine, who is
appointed by the legislature, made the fol-
lowing comment — and I quote:
"If the attorney general is appointed by
the governor there is always the question
of whether or not he becomes in the nature
|
