Photo courtesy Paul Zukerberg’s office.

The D.C. Council and Board of Elections and Ethics have responded to a lawsuit from D.C. attorney general hopeful Paul Zukerberg — a lawyer and former At-Large candidate who wants to keep the AG election on this year’s ballot — by saying that the voters’ wishes aren’t relevant in this matter for “a variety of obvious reasons.”

After the Council passed a bill to delay the attorney general election until 2018, despite the wishes of a majority of D.C. voters, Zukerberg filed a lawsuit against them to ensure the election would still be held this year and that his name would be on the ballot. It’s since been a rough ride for Zukerberg, who’s had his fair share of hardships along the way—including having his initial injunction denied, and then having the Office of Campaign Finance tell him to stop campaigning then reverse the decision.

A 265-page opposition to Zukerberg’s preliminary injunction submitted by D.C. Attorney General Irv Nathan says that “the intent of the voters…is simply not relevant, for a variety of obvious reasons.” From the response:

Not the least among them, the Court of Appeals has unequivocally rejected the notion that the ballot language that voters see and approve is indicative of the meaning of the underlying enactments. More generally too, it cannot be seriously disputed that the entire goal of statutory interpretation is to
determine the intent of the legislature in drafting statutory language; this is no less true in the realm of Charter amendments approved by the voters, the voters’ involvement notwithstanding. … Simply put, because the voters had no hand in drafting the 2010 Law, their expectations as to its meaning have no legal significance (at least for the purposes of this lawsuit).

And:

Plaintiff did not even declare his desire to run for Attorney General until November 4, 2013, a month after the 2013 Law passed, and only after the District asserted he had no standing as a voter in his first lawsuit. Plaintiff, after willfully ignoring the political developments of 2013 and declaring his candidacy for Attorney General, literally after the 2013 Law delaying the election was passed, has the temerity to claim he will be damaged if this Court does not save his campaign now. Plaintiff’s self-inflicted predicament is insufficient to support a preliminary injunction.

On his website, Zukerberg says that he “will fight the Council and anyone else who seeks to deprive D.C. citizens of their right to vote.”

So what’s next for Zukerberg? His case is pending before the D.C. Superior Court and he’s filed a motion for preliminary injunction, in order to prevent the Board of Elections from scrubbing the attorney general election from the April 1 Democratic primary ballot. But the Council has filed an opposition to the Zukerberg’s injunction, with a motion to dismiss. A hearing date for the cross motions hasn’t been set yet.

“The interests of the voters can best be achieved if the parties stick to a dispassionate discussion of the law, and not on the personal views of the lawyers involved,” Zukerberg said on his website.