This column cited then-Hawaii Lt. Gov. Ben Cayetano’s 1993 statement that because his state’s AG was a gubernatorial appointee, “the only people who find corruption here is the federal government.” I also mentioned then-Alaska state Sen. Jerry Ward saying in 1999 that the people of his state “need to have an AG loyal to the state Constitution and the people…, not a personal lawyer for the governor.” I pointed out that according to the National Association of Attorneys General, the AG “is popularly elected in 43 states, as well as in Guam, and is appointed by the governor in five states (Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Wyoming) and in the four jurisdictions of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In Maine, the attorney general is selected by secret ballot of the legislature and in Tennessee, by the state Supreme Court. In the District of Columbia, the mayor appoints the attorney general whose powers and duties are similar to those of the attorneys general of the states and jurisdictions.” I just checked the NAAG’s website. The list of jurisdictions with elected AG’s remains the same.
Torres’s proposal, in any case, went nowhere, but now a similar legislative initiative is about to be passed and may be placed on next year’s ballot.
Introduced by Rep. Frank S. Dela Cruz, H.L.I. 17-2 will give the elected AG a term of four years and an annual salary of $80,000. The AG can serve for two terms only and must be elected by a majority of the votes cast. There will be a runoff if no candidate receives 50 percent plus 1.
In light of the obvious displeasure with the current setup, H.L.I. 17-2 is likely to be ratified by voters. But will it result in positive changes for the CNMI?
As an abstract idea, an AG directly accountable to voters sure sounds sensible. But applied to the specific conditions of the CNMI, what are its possible consequences?
To answer that question requires more questions: Who will run for AG? Who can win? How can a candidate ensure his or her victory? How are elections won in the CNMI? What can prevent an elected AG — a politician — from making deals with other politicians?
I’m not saying I no longer support an elected AG proposal. All I’m saying is that those who propose significant changes should realize that they may have unintended or even unforeseen consequences.
Remember the reapportionment proposal that was supposed to reduce the number of House members? It resulted in the creation of two additional seats. The runoff provision that aimed to prevent the re-election of the minority governor helped him secure a majority. The federalization of local immigration that guest workers believed would improve their immigration status and working conditions is now displacing hundreds if not thousands of nonresidents and imposing more hardship on struggling businesses.
Local immigration control would prevent the influx of outsiders. Poker arcades were for tourists only. NMC and scholarships would reduce the islands’ dependence on guest workers. A casino would boost Tinian’s economy. Abramoff would protect local minimum wage and immigration.
Paseo de Marianas would attract more visitors. A casino would boost Rota’s economy.
Clearly, there is no cure-all for what is ailing the CNMI — or any jurisdiction or country for that matter. This doesn’t mean that reformists should just give up. But they have to appreciate the complexity of governance, society and human nature. They must do a better job of knowing what they’re up against.
In the CNMI, for example, the main obstacle to real change is the fact that the majority of the voters are government employees and their relatives. So how do you reform a system whose continued existence is the top priority of the electorate?
Some say: raise the private sector’s minimum wage rate. In this economy? Since the federalization of local minimum wage, CNMI employers have reduced work-hours, benefits and personnel. Their consumer base continues to shrink while the cost of doing business is increasing.
CNMI wage hike proponents, apparently, are no different from the Saipan casino advocates. Both have no use for basic arithmetic. Both believe in a quick-fix.
What the CNMI needs are solutions that can work here because they reflect CNMI realities. What are these remedies? That’s where the advocates of real change — not old slogans — come in.
Send feedback
