The Choosing of Local Officials in Representative Democratic Mode (Law Enforcement):Municipal Prosecutor-By Harsha Sankar

 

The Choosing of Local Officials in Representative Democratic Mode
(Law Enforcement):Municipal Prosecutor-By Harsha Sankar

Dear Citizen,                                  October 2020

Of the officeholders of the locality's executive branch which should not be chosen by direct vote of the electorate or by local government,the Municipal Prosecutor is that officeholder whose office is to prosecute private citizens who have already indicted by the local police/sheriff department for the violation of  state and local laws. That office can provide back up and secondary support to both state and federal attorney general investigations.

A candidate for Municipal Prosecutor should not be a participant in any branch of government for at least one year prior to his/her election. That candidate should also neither belong to any organization that is either not publicly announced nor should its contents of its meetings be sealed in secrecy for at least two years prior to the election. Finally, that candidate should not belong to any group comprised solely of government branch participants.

The elected lawmaking body of local government should accept all the applicants eligible for this position,limit the number of candidates for this position to three,and then submit these choices of candidates to the Governor. The Governor, out of the three nominations,selects the final prospect and submits his/her final choice to the upper house of the state legislature. That upper house(State Senate) ratifies the governor's choice with a Yes or No simple majority vote.

The reason why the upper state legislative house provides ratification is their members are not nearly as close to the constituents than the members of the lower house. Since the position of Municipal Prosecutor is a state position that requires highly limited interaction with all local activities and with the constituents, the upper house's approval is solely needed to declare who will serve as Municipal Prosecutor for that jurisdiction. Proper distance must be maintained between this position and the constituents so that conflict of interest does not exist when a private citizen(s) are prosecuted.

If the upper house fails to ratify a candidate, with a quorum of two-thirds, then the Governor can compel the local (municipal) lawmaking body to provide an extra set of applicants numbering three to his/her office for review. That State Governor can again resubmit his/her choice to the upper house of the state legislature for ratification.

If for the second time this legislative house refuses ratification, then the governor's choice is submitted to the lower state legislative house for ratification. If the lower house, usually referred as the House of Delegates/Assemblymen, refuses ratification, then the locality is mandated to have its elected body choose the Municipal Prosecutor. The reason why this position should not ever be electable, unlike the City Chief Of Police/County Sheriff, is even though this officeholder and office belongs to the executive branch, he/she still actively participates in the judiciary. No participant in the judiciary should ever be subject to direct vote by the citizenry because it would result in proximity. Proximity means populism and politics would hinder the objective and proportionate application of the law.

The Municipal Prosecutor should be an 8 year term with a reconfirmation at the end of the first four years of service by the upper house of the state legislature.

If a member of the upper house refuses to cast a vote for reconfirmation, that member must provide a minimum of a 100 word written explanation that document his reasoning behind it.

If the upper house,through simple majority vote,refuses reconfirmation of a current serving official in this position, then the entire process of selection must start again.