Electing versus appointing
The state Senate passed a state constitutional amendment today, sponsored by Rosalind Kurita (DINO-Clarksville) which would make certain Tennessee officers elected rather than appointed:
The state Senate on Monday voted for a constitutional amendment to hold statewide elections for five new offices: lieutenant governor, attorney general, treasurer, secretary of state and comptroller.
With the possible exception of lieutenant governor, this is, to put it bluntly, a stupid idea.
The other four offices are not political in nature, and they should not be. The attorney general represents the state in court and interprets the law in an advisory capacity for the governor and for city and county governments. Interpretation of the law should not be beholden to partisan spin.
Yes, I recognize the irony of that last sentence, and yes, I know what state I live in. Hush.
As The Chattanoogan notes:
Currently, the speaker of the Senate serves as the lieutenant governor and is elected by a majority vote of the Senate. The state attorney general is appointed by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and the members of the Tennessee House and Senate elect the treasurer, secretary of state, and comptroller.
Maybe we should move to a system where the governor and lieutenant governor run together on the same ticket; I wouldn't really have a problem with that. LG would remain a purely ceremonial position, unless something untoward happened to the governor. That's fine. I think the governor should have a backup in case he/she is hit by a meteor or whisked away on the mothership or something. I also think the state attorney general should have more robust prosecutorial authority. With the exception of the LG, though, there's no reason to elect those other offices.
The AG, the secretary of state, the comptroller, and the treasurer are administrative offices. They do not make or implement political policy, nor do they serve political functions. They are clerks and executives, not policy-makers. There is no reasonable cause to suggest these posts should be beholden to the whim of Joe Q. Voter.
Can anyone reasonably imagine a scenario in which Tennessee voters are asked to cast an informed vote on which candidate has a better understanding of macro-economic policy?
Seriously. Think about it.
We'd end up with a treasurer and a comptroller whose primary mission would be to cook the books instead of fairly accounting the state's finances; they'd be motivated by the prospect of re-election rather than GAAP, so none of their forecasts or books would be trustworthy. Let's not go down that road.
We'd end up with an AG who prosecutes even more selectively than district attorneys currently do. Let's not go down that road either.
There is simply no upside to this idea (except maybe the LG position). The lure of political gain is too tempting for our legislators (see Tennessee Waltz as an example). Why on Earth would we extend the temptation of campaign lucre and lobbyist bribery to even more offices?
Knox County currently elects the Register of Deeds, the County Clerk, and the Trustee. Our term-limited County Commissioners who were forced to vacate their seats in January are now busying themselves campaigning for these fee offices. The same faces will simply occupy different seats. A state-wide metastasis of Knox County's cancer is not a good idea.