Pet Worth: This Month's Highly Adoptable Animals
New Whole Foods to Open Up Exactly Where it is Needed Least
Jack Evans Hops Aboard a SmartBike at Bike Lane Unveiling
The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton today introduced a bill that would allow District residents to elect their own District Attorney for the first time.
“We’re happy to help the president select the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. But for local crimes, we need a D.A. elected directly by the people of this city, just as other jurisdictions select their own chief law enforcement officials," Norton said in a statement.
Before DCist readers get too excited, please be mindful that this is a D.A. position Norton is talking about here, not the A.G. position currently occupied by the controversial Peter Nickles. The District is currently served by a top prosecutor for both federal and local crimes in the form of the U.S. Attorney for D.C.
District voters already passed a referendum approving a locally elected D.A., in 2002, but since the change would constitute an amendment to the Home Rule charter, Congress and the President both need to act before the office can finally be established.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
awesome news!
this is just a step. maybe we can get a referendum together to make the AG position subject to an election as well...
Glad to hear Norton is introducing this. Maybe this time it will fare better than our 2002 referendum vote.
The real question is: why did she introduce the bill so late into this legislative session? After the demise of her 1/3 representation boondoggle, did she feel that this legislation, which she has introduced in previous sessions (specifically the 108th [H.R.2334], 109th [H.R.5800], 110th [H.R.1296] Congresses), might satiate her constituents? Like those identical bills, today's bill will probably share the same fate.
I dunno. I dont really see this as a good thing. Its like cities that have elected sherrifs
Sometimes I get this feeling that Norton is just spinning her wheels to keep busy... Perhaps her time is up and some new blood needs to take over the fight for DC rights!
On another note, why is it that everyone assumes voting is the most effective and bullet-proof way to decide on things? Money buys votes, thus, money would buy our next DA if this passes... I'm not so sure positions intregal to the administration of justice and order should be subject to the whims of the minority who actually vote (and are guided by the pocket book of the richest candidate)...
But then again, I could just be a sore loser from the vote in Maine & elsewhere yesterday, and perhaps I've just lost all confidence in "voting" to serve a rightful purpose...
of course she's spinning her wheels. and heck yes we need new blood.
I am with you mlswan. The last thing we need is to end up in situation of political paralysis like California where the dog catcher panders to the least common denominator.
Personally, I don't want a situation where Adam Bricker tells McCoy not to pursue his prosecution of Dick Cheney just because there is an election coming up.
1) Why would we want a political hack running this office? Regardless of party, the US attorneys that have been appointed in recent years have generally been quite competent.
2) One can only imagine the turf fights that would erupt between the US Attorney, which will still exist, and the DC DA over which crimes are "local" and which crimes are "federal". Take drug crimes as the easiest example. Right now the "smaller" cases end up in Superior Court, while the "big" cases go into federal district court. Easy to have one person (the USAttorney) make that decision. Not so easy if the US Attorney wants the case but the local political hack wants also to be "tough on crime" and fights for the case.