Sen. Boots has taken several runs at the idea of having the attorney general represent judges in mandate litigation. Mandates are generally where a judge orders the county to pay more to fund the operation of the courts. If the county disagrees, there is a procedure that, among other things, usually entails the judge retaining private counsel and the county having to foot the bill. Insult to injury from the perspective of local officials. Normally, when a state official – including a judge – gets involved in litigation, the attorney general represents that official.
In years past, the legislation has simply died. This year, Sen. Boots got legislation urging the legislative council to have a summer committee study the matter. That’s a sort of legislative limbo. It will be interesting to see if it receives any serious study and, if so, what the committee will recommend.
Here is a problem. The AG takes the absolute position that he and he alone decides whether to litigate matters and what position to take. The client doesn’t matter. So a judge issuing a mandate, represented by the AG, could simply see the AG veto the mandate by choosing not to represent the judge in court.
Not that I’m big on mandates. I think they are often abused. I don’t know the answer though in terms of the best way of handling this. Having the AG represent judges in mandates doesn’t seem like it would work.