The pursuit of political office and the pursuit of justice on behalf of the public don’t always follow parallel tracks. The American electoral system is privately financed, by and large, and those on the campaign trail can lean in some measure, on large donations.
And that means the donors themselves can wield significant influence over a candidate who is working within the justice system.
That conflict applies to the case of Attorney General Douglas Chin’s candidacy for the Hawaii congressional seat U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa will leave while she runs for governor. And it’s why Chin should resign the appointed AG post during his campaign, which began with his announcement Dec. 18.
While Chin is a first-time candidate, he has gained national prominence as the lead attorney in the state’s opposition to President Donald Trump’s travel ban. The latest iteration of that controversial ban, which targeted specified Muslim-majority nations along with countries such as Venezuela and North Korea, is in effect while the legal battlefronts move through appeals, ending at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chin undoubtedly will get more attention at the federal level while this case proceeds, which, from the perspective on his rivals for Congress, could be an advantage. So far, state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, Rep. Kaniela Ing and City Councilman Ernie Martin are vying for the seat, too.
Additionally there is the investment of time in the campaign a political rookie such as Chin must make, a substantial distraction from his duties as AG.
But the principal problem with multitasking the campaign with the job as Hawaii’s top law enforcement officer has much less to do with time management or leveling the candidates’ field, and more with transparency and fairness to the public.
Gov. David Ige, who appointed Chin to the AG post, said he believes Chin need not resign.
“I am certain that he is aware of the prohibition of campaigning using state resources and state time, and I know that he will follow the law,” Ige said.
Unfortunately, the governor is missing the point. It has less to do with any specific quibbles about Chin’s own grasp of campaign law and ethics — there are no issues to raise there.
It’s more to do with the potential overlap between the AG’s office and parties that could take advantage of it. As with most issues of political and governmental ethics, the appearance of a conflict is a problem, with or without an actual ethical lapse.
The state attorney general is the gatekeeper for potential legal action, and even if he takes a back seat, Chin still would be in a position to decide whom to sue.
There can be national and multinational companies doing business in Hawaii, any number of which could be seeking a way to steer clear of legal entanglements. And they might think that having the ear of the AG certainly couldn’t hurt.
Keeping the separation between moneyed interests and the AG is one of the reasons why Hawaii has kept it as an appointed rather than elected office. Hawaii is one of only a handful of states that has drawn this bright line.
It’s true that the governor appoints the AG and could bring pressure to bear from his or her own campaign donors. But that at least is not a direct pipeline to the attorney general.
Additionally, the AG nominee must be confirmed by the state Senate, which has a chance to vet the appointee. It’s a crucial task the broad electorate has shown little interest in doing. As is seen in the history of entrenched incumbencies among Honolulu city prosecutors, the voters generally choose on the basis of name recognition.
Unless and until that changes, the appointment system, while imperfect, delivers a better result: an AG independent of campaign considerations. Hawaii needs to keep it that way.
