D.C.’s first-ever candidate for attorney general, Paul Zukerberg, appeared in federal court today to argue that there should be an election next year.

Although D.C. voters decided that, yes, they would like to be able to choose their own attorney general, the Council didn’t think that they knew what was best for them and voted to delay the election until 2018, when they felt that the city would be ready. As such, Zukerberg did the only thing he could think of to ensure that this wouldn’t happen: He sued them.

Today, Zukerberg, a lawyer and pro-pot former Council candidate, and his lawyer, Gary Thompson, went before a judge in the U.S. District Court to argue that there should be an attorney general election next year. Although the judge, Judge James E. Boasberg, won’t make a decision until sometime next week, Zukerberg and Thompson are optimistic after today’s courtroom proceedings.

The Post reports that, while Boasberg questions whether Zukerberg’s case can be resolved in a federal court, he understood that Zukerberg’s claims has merit:

Boasberg also questioned lawyers on both sides whether the issues in the case are properly resolved in the federal courts. He again appeared skeptical at times that the constitutional claims had merit, although he seemed more sympathetic that the election delay could run afoul of District law. Zukerberg initially filed his case in D.C. Superior Court before it was moved to a federal judge; moving it back to the local courts could mean further delays.

But Boasberg did recognize the discrepancy at the heart of Zukerberg’s claims: The charter amendment mandates an AG election “after Jan. 1, 2014″ — which was interpreted by the council to permit a delay — while language that actually appeared on the ballot said the election would, without qualification, take place “in 2014.”

After reviewing the language of the Council’s amendment, Boasberg noted that someone made a mistake in drafting that language. “They’re not terribly compatible. Somebody did a lousy job here.”

But while Zukerberg awaits word back from Boasberg, Thompson told DCist that they feel optimistic about the events of today’s hearing. “We certainly think we had the better of the arguments by merit alone,” Thompson said, “I don’t think there’s any doubt [the Council] acted illegally.” As to what side he thinks Boasberg will rule in favor of? Well, it’s complicated, Thompson said. “There’s basically two arguments, one has to do jurisdiction, the other has to do with constitutional rights.” While Boasberg seemed to side with Zukerberg and Thompson as to the legality of the Council’s amendment, it’s still unclear if he has jurisdiction, considering the Council’s amendment still has to go up for congressional review.

“He’s taking it very seriously,” Thompson said of Boasberg’s position. “But we fought today, and we’ll fight next week and the week after that if we need to.

“The D.C. Council can’t stomp on the wishes of D.C. voters.”