These state offices used as stepping stones should be appointed
The attorney general, secretary of state and state treasurer are all running for higher office. Why aren’t these appointed positions?
Although not a Catholic, I seem to spend a considerable amount of time in this space offering devotions to St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes.
Today’s offering is to the cause of appointing, rather than electing, state officers other than governor.
Our attorney general, Mark Brnovich, is running for U.S. Senate.
Our secretary of state, Katie Hobbs, is running for governor.
As is the state treasurer, Kimberly Yee.
I am not prissy about politicians using their office to promote themselves. If we are going to elect politicians to perform these state functions, that comes with the territory.
As long as office resources aren’t used for official campaign functions, such as fundraising or generating attendance at campaign rallies, I don’t
In all cases, professional expertise, not the ability to win an election, should be the chief criterion for holding the office. Electing a politician to manage an investment portfolio and handle the state’s checking accounts is particularly foolish.
think a line has been crossed — at least any line that makes sense, or is consistently enforceable, in the real world.
And if a politician is running for higher office, it’s hardly surprising if the publicity from the current office is tailored to send a helpful message for the promotional quest. That also seems an inevitable consequence of the decision to make them elected positions.
The same is true of official actions. If a politician is holding the office, particularly one who has higher ambitions, political calculations are going to be part of the decision-making process. They will all deny that, but any experience with human behavior, and politics, will confirm it.
Brnovich is the most aggressive in blending the official with campaigning. He has a very active office Twitter account and an equally active campaign one. If you just look at the messages, it would often be difficult, based upon content, to discern whether they are coming from the office or the campaign account.
His office Twitter account is clearly highlighting official action that puts Brnovich in a favorable light for GOP primary voters in the U.S. Senate race. Again, I don’t think this is surprising or unethical. Just notable.
For Hobbs, the suspicion is more that her official actions have been influenced by her gubernatorial candidacy than that she is blending her messaging machinery.
During the 2020 election and afterwards, left-wing groups sued the state over a variety of matters. In such election-related lawsuits, the secretary of state is inevitably a named defendant.
A technocrat as secretary of state would have no reason to act other than as a passive defendant. The attorney general or some other interested party would be doing the actual litigating. A technocratic secretary of state wouldn’t feel the need to make a show of disassociating herself from the state election law or practice in question.
However, Hobbs did just that in several cases, siding with the plaintiffs suing the state, and even seeking to prevent Brnovich, as attorney general, from defending state election laws and practices. It would be difficult to win a Democratic primary for governor if even nominally seeming to discount the progressive narrative of GOP voter suppression.
Yee has such a low-key office that opportunities to use it to promote her gubernatorial ambitions are minuscule. She trumpets the investment gains her office is producing, as have all her predecessors. However, that’s useful for the public to know and something a technocratic treasurer would also want to do.
The most important reason these state offices should be appointed rather than elected is that there is nothing about the duties for which political judgment is necessary or a benefit. In fact, in all cases it is a detriment.
The attorney general is supposed to be offering impartial legal advice to state agencies, defending the state in court, and enforcing the law where he has jurisdiction, as the saying goes, without fear or favor.
The secretary of state is supposed to efficiently and fairly oversee the administration of state elections and serve as a competent filing repository for certain official documents.
The state treasurer manages an investment portfolio of $23 billion and handles the state‘s checking accounts.
In all cases, professional expertise, not the ability to win an election, should be the chief criterion for holding the office. Electing a politician to manage an investment portfolio and handle the state’s checking accounts is particularly foolish.
As illustrated by the spectacle of these politicians running for another office while supposedly performing the functions of their current one, there’s a price to be paid for these positions being elected.
Having politicians rather than technocrats at the helm distorts the decision-making process within the offices by injecting political considerations that ought not be there. And it diminishes public acceptance of the legitimacy of the actions taken because of the political hue.
St. Jude, I beseech thee.