Three states held elections in 2007 for the Office of Attorney General.   The offices in all three - Ky, La, and Ms - have been held by Democrats since as long as anyone can remember and the 2007 results did not produce a party change.  Of particular significance is that all three Democratic candidates trounced their opponents by at least 20%.   In other words, despite millions of dollars being spent and two new faces, the party identification of the AG remains the same. This phenomenon puzzles me in part because the these same voters have been chosing Republicans for virtually every other elected position.   In La and Ms, the AG is now the only statewide official who is a Democrat.

In other states, the situation seems exactly reversed.   In Pennsylvania, a blue state that is getting bluer, the AG has always been a Republican.  In the blue states of Michigan and Washington, conservative GOP AG's enjoy strong popular support.

My long held theory is that the voters like an independent attorney general and tend to split their votes for that position far more than any other, but I may be wrong.  Perhaps there is no trend and these races are decided based on the tone and the personalities of individual candidates.   At the present time there are eighteen states where the AG and the Governor are of differing parties, but is that number high or low? 

I just don't know.

Awhile back, eleven state AG's and a number of environmental groups challenged the Naional Highway Safety Administration's rule on fuel economy.  Last week, a panel of the Nith Circuit agreed with slapped down the rules because they placed a zero value on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide that - to everyone on the planet except those who currently hold power in D.C. - have an impact on global warming.   The rules also left SUV's out of the rules altogether.

The Alliance of Automobile Manaufacterers (who represent the Big Three that is fast becoming the Little Three) are pounding their aging drums and decrying judicial activism. 

The real story behind the court's decision is that it was a one day story.  These cases are sadly becoming routine.  In case after case, court after court - almost always at the request of state attorneys general - are overcoming the presumptions granted administrative agencies and saying, "hey, go back to work.  Respect science. Read the law. Do your job."

This isn't the way it supposed to be, of course, because our environmental federal agencies are supposed to be on the side of the law and our collective futures.  Perhaps sometime soon we can all get back to having our federal government make rules for all of us and not just the powerful few.   When that happens, the AG's can get back to working with our federal government instead of against it.