Photo courtesy Paul Zukerberg.

Although the likelihood of an attorney general election on the April 1 ballots is not very high, it’s not completely ruled out.

Yesterday, Paul Zukerberg—a lawyer and former At-Large Council candidate—received notice from the D.C. Court of Appeals that they would not intervene in a D.C. Superior Court judge’s ruling that there doesn’t need to be an attorney general election in the April primaries.

After the D.C. Council passed a bill to push back an election for attorney general to 2018, despite D.C. residents voting to have it in 2014, Zukerberg filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Council. However, D.C. Superior Court Judge Laura A. Cordero denied Zukerberg’s motion. He then filed an appeal with the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Although the Court of Appeals decided not to intervene on Judge Cordero’s rulings, it stated that it “does not express any opinion on the underlying merits of the case.” But all is not lost for Zukerberg. A status hearing has been set before a trial judge for Friday at 9:30 a.m. According to Zukerberg, although “the Court of Appeals made it plain that they were not addressing a ruling on the merits,” the trial court needs to do that in the first hearing.

Even if there isn’t an attorney general election in April—of which it’s not looking too good—there’s still a chance there could be one in the November general election. Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) introduced a bill in December to implement a partisan attorney general election during the November primary that’s currently being considered by the Council. “I fully support the Council’s efforts to get the attorney general election back on track and fulfill the Charter referendum creating the office of elected attorney general,” Zukerberg says.