Alright, let's talk about something that really matters to you and every other Texan: the Attorney General’s office. For the first time in over ten years, the current Republican officeholder, Ken Paxton, isn’t running for re-election. This isn't just a political reshuffle; it's a chance to completely rethink how the state's top lawyer operates. We're looking at a major shift, and on the Democratic side, three folks are stepping up to bat, hoping to win the primary and then take on the Republican nominee in November. If you're thinking about the kind of legal leadership Texas needs, you've gotta pay attention to this. Historically, winning a statewide office as a Democrat in Texas has been tough – no Democrat has done it since way back in 1994. So, whoever emerges from this primary will definitely be playing catch-up in the general election. But make no mistake, the Texas Attorney General's office is seriously powerful. It’s one of the biggest legal operations in the country. This office handles everything from making sure child support judgments are enforced, to cracking down on fraud in government programs, and even investigating sketchy charities and businesses that try to rip you off. It's also the main defense lawyer for state agencies when they get sued, and it puts out official opinions interpreting state law. When you hear about a new state law or policy, it's often the AG who has the final say on what it actually means, and who defends it in court. Now, under Paxton, the office got really focused on pushing a conservative agenda through high-profile lawsuits. He launched a ton of legal challenges against the federal government, against nonprofits he didn't like, and even against private companies. He wasn’t afraid to try out some pretty creative legal ideas in courts that were often sympathetic to his views, making the Texas AG’s office a big player in the national conservative legal scene. So, the next person to sit in that chair gets to decide what the main mission of this powerful legal machine will be. To help you sort through the choices, we’ve looked at what the three Democratic candidates – Tony Box, Joe Jaworski, and Nathan Johnson – are saying about the big issues. Let’s see where they stand and how their plans could reshape Texas law and policy. ### Meet the Candidates First up, we have **Tony Box**, a private attorney from Dallas. He’s got a background that’s pretty unique: he was an assistant U.S. attorney, spent over a decade as an FBI special agent (even on a SWAT team!), and served in the Army, deploying to Iraq. He also worked on fraud and anti-corruption as a civilian contractor. His experience really sets a tone for his focus on law enforcement and accountability. Then there's **Joe Jaworski**, a private mediator and lawyer. He’s no stranger to public service, having been the mayor of Galveston after Hurricane Ike. That meant leading his city through a massive disaster recovery, which is a big deal. He's also run for this office before, back in 2022. And finally, **Nathan Johnson**, who's currently a State Representative for part of Dallas County. He’s been in the Texas Senate since 2019, so he knows a lot about how state government works. Besides that, he's also a litigator and mediator in private practice. These guys are bringing diverse experiences to the table, and their answers to some key questions really show how they'd steer the AG's office. ### What do you believe should be the agency’s top priority? This question gets right to the heart of what the AG’s office should be doing for you, the people of Texas. It’s about setting the overall direction for a huge legal department. **Tony Box** says his top priority would be to bring back integrity and accountability to an office he feels has become a bit of a joke. He wants the Attorney General to act like the chief law enforcement officer of Texas, protecting consumers, fighting fraud, and actually working with law enforcement agencies. He’s not interested in defending what he calls “illegal power grabs” or serving “corrupt politicians.” His first move? A full review of every lawsuit and action taken by the office. He’d keep the valid, constitutional ones and toss out anything he sees as frivolous. This approach means he’d likely be looking hard at the legal basis for every ongoing case, potentially dropping suits that were brought for political show rather than solid legal grounds. For you, this could mean fewer tax dollars wasted on politically motivated lawsuits and a greater focus on everyday issues like consumer protection. **Joe Jaworski** lays out three specific new divisions he’d create to address his top concerns. First, a Division of Affordability, designed to use the law to help young Texans achieve what he calls the American Dream – things like graduating without debt, getting good jobs, and finding affordable housing. Legally, this could mean an aggressive approach to antitrust cases, scrutinizing predatory lending practices, or tackling housing market manipulation. Second, he'd create a Division of Elections and Voter Encouragement. His goal here is to enforce existing laws (like registering every high school senior) and reverse what he sees as decades of voter suppression in Texas. This would involve legal challenges to voting restrictions and advocating for broader access to the ballot box, directly impacting your constitutional right to vote. Third, a Division of Ethics and Integrity would investigate and pursue corruption within Texas government, working with local district attorneys. He'd also push for constitutional amendments on term limits, campaign finance reform, independent redistricting commissions, and citizen-initiated legislation. These are big policy proposals that would require significant legislative or even constitutional changes, aiming to fundamentally reshape governmental accountability and your ability to influence laws. **Nathan Johnson** believes the office has too many vital jobs to pick just one top priority. Instead, he’d focus on rebuilding the AG’s office itself – its talent, purpose, culture, and ethics – and get it back to serving the public, not just partisan groups. He sees four major issues getting worse daily: uncompetitive markets (which drive up prices, hurt quality, and reduce your bargaining power as a consumer or worker), too much commercial influence over public policy (which often leads to corruption), a fading respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions, and a bad relationship with local district attorneys that makes it harder to keep communities safe. His approach signals a broad legal and administrative overhaul, emphasizing robust antitrust enforcement and consumer protection, while also stressing the importance of the AG's role in upholding democratic norms and collaborating with local law enforcement, which is something you'd feel directly in your local community's safety and economic fairness. ### Would you aim to keep most current employees of the agency or clean house? This question is all about how a new Attorney General would manage a massive state agency with over 4,000 employees. It's about balancing institutional knowledge with a fresh start, especially after a controversial tenure. **Tony Box** is pretty clear: it depends. He says the more political hires and appointments would likely be out. But he figures there are many public servants in the office who are just committed to the Texas Constitution and upholding the law. He hopes there are more of them than the political types. He’s worked with people from both parties in the FBI and as a federal prosecutor, where politics didn't matter – just doing the job right. So, he’d judge employees on their competence, integrity, and dedication to Texans, not their political leanings. This suggests a merit-based, non-partisan approach to staffing, which could bring stability and professionalism back to the office by prioritizing legal skill over political affiliation. **Joe Jaworski** points out that the agency has thousands of employees, and many are non-partisan and valuable state workers. He’d reach out to each of them to see if they’re willing and able to continue serving. But he’s also planning to identify what he calls “political apparatchiks” – basically, the political appointees Ken Paxton brought in. He expects many of them would leave on their own, but if they don’t, he’d make it clear, within legal limits, that their last day is Paxton’s last day. This indicates a clear break with the previous administration’s political leadership, while trying to retain the working-level staff who keep the state's legal machinery running. Legally, a new AG has considerable power over political appointments, though civil service protections often apply to non-political staff. **Nathan Johnson** says anyone working for Paxton who was pushing a partisan ideological agenda would need to find work elsewhere, likely meaning most, if not all, of the top brass would be gone. But he's adamant he won’t give ideological purity tests. Disagreement is fine, he says, but pushing an agenda isn't. He’s sure many of the 4,000 employees aren’t especially ideological and have crucial institutional knowledge, professional skills, and a personal commitment to public service. He’d invite those people to re-apply. The proportion who stay or go would depend on what they find once they’re in the office. This approach suggests a nuanced effort to remove politically aligned leadership while safeguarding the expertise of career civil servants, which is key for maintaining the office’s operational capacity and legal continuity. ### What would be the relationship between the OAG and the Trump administration under your leadership? This question directly addresses how the Texas AG would handle federalism – the balance of power between state and federal governments – especially in a highly partisan political environment. The AG's office has often been a key battleground for state-federal disputes. **Tony Box** would work with any federal administration when it benefits Texans and upholds the Constitution. But he’s not going to bow down to anyone in Washington, D.C. He’s spent his whole career fighting corruption and powerful people who abuse their positions, and he says that wouldn’t change as Attorney General. His loyalty, he says, is to the people of Texas and the rule of law, not to any politician or party. If the federal government overreaches or violates Texans’ rights, he’d push back. If cooperation helps Texas, he’d cooperate. The core question for him would always be: what’s best for the people of Texas? This pragmatic, Texas-first approach suggests he'd evaluate federal policies on their legal merits and impact on the state, rather than engaging in automatic opposition or submission, giving you a voice when federal actions might harm Texas's interests. **Joe Jaworski** minces no words: his relationship with a Trump administration would be “hostile,” but within the proper rules for federal and state litigation. He says his 35-year legal career has taught him there’s only one way to deal with people like Trump and his “minions”: “nose to nose and ten toes down.” This signals a highly aggressive, litigious stance against a potential Trump administration, similar in intensity to Paxton’s approach to the Biden administration, but from the opposite political perspective. For you, this means a Texas AG's office that would likely be frequently challenging federal policies, potentially bringing high-stakes lawsuits that could define the legal boundaries of federal power and state sovereignty, regardless of the political cost. **Nathan Johnson** also expects a “rough” relationship. He says if he were AG in 2025, he would have already sued a Trump administration many times for breaking laws and the Constitution and harming Texans. He points out that Texas has missed out on money and sovereign power because the current AG has been too subservient to Washington. However, he stresses that his opposition wouldn't be out of spite or for political theater. While he wouldn’t hesitate to sue a Trump administration (or any other), he’d also work in partnership whenever it benefits the state and aligns with the law and his authority. He believes this principled, non-partisan approach has allowed him to successfully pass many bills in the Texas Senate while still advancing Democratic values. This nuanced position promises vigorous legal challenges to federal actions he views as unlawful or harmful to Texas, but also suggests a willingness to collaborate where there's common ground, aiming to protect your state's interests through smart legal strategy, not just political grandstanding. ### What, if anything, would you carry forward from Attorney General Ken Paxton’s time in the office? This question probes the candidates' willingness to find any common ground or continuity with the previous administration, or if they plan a complete overhaul. It's about discerning what, if any, part of the existing legal framework they'd preserve. **Tony Box** plans a thorough review of everything Ken Paxton did: all his lawsuits, press releases, and what he calls “performative politics.” He’s going to sort through what needs to stay, especially in terms of active lawsuits, and what needs to be thrown out. The standard for him is clear: if a lawsuit is justified, constitutional, and truly in the state's best interest, it’ll continue. But he fully expects to discard many. The core test will be: is this serving Texans, or is this serving Ken Paxton’s political and financial interests? This signifies a focus on legality and public benefit over political posturing, potentially saving your taxpayer money by ending meritless litigation and refocusing the office on genuine legal issues. **Joe Jaworski** gives a blunt answer: absolutely nothing. He believes the credibility of the AG’s office has “withered” and the agency has been “corrupted” during Paxton’s tenure. He even jokes about having a “small museum dedicated to Paxton’s ruinous years” in the state office building to teach future generations about how corruption harms the rule of law and American values. This strong stance suggests a complete rejection of the Paxton era, signaling a desire for a fresh start that would likely lead to a total re-evaluation of the office's mission and methods, impacting every aspect of how the AG's office would serve you. **Nathan Johnson** sees a couple of areas worth keeping, but enhancing: antitrust enforcement and consumer protection. He recognizes that some people in Paxton’s office did take seriously the job of checking unlawful practices and market-distorting commercial power. He points to recent successes by the Texas AG in changing behavior by hotels unlawfully charging “junk fees,” noting that this type of litigation can even inspire new laws. However, he criticizes Paxton for sometimes pursuing these goals with a bias against smaller businesses and for relying too much on outside lawyers. Johnson would recruit a top-notch team in-house and combine resources with other AGs nationwide, regardless of their political party, to boost this aspect of the office’s work without bias. This approach aims to build on a legitimate function of the AG's office but dramatically improve its execution, potentially saving you money by curbing monopolistic practices and protecting you from deceptive business actions more effectively and equitably. ### Do you believe the state has to cooperate with court rulings, from state or federal courts, that you believe were wrongly decided? This question touches on a foundational principle of our legal system: the rule of law and the separation of powers. It’s about whether a state official can simply ignore a court decision they don’t like. **Tony Box** is unequivocal: Yes. He says the rule of law means respecting court decisions even when you disagree with them. As a former federal prosecutor and Judge Advocate General officer, he understands that our system relies on following court rulings. If he thought a ruling was wrong, his response would be to appeal it through the legal system, not to ignore it. He believes Ken Paxton has embarrassed Texas by treating the law as optional when it didn’t fit his political goals. For Box, the Attorney General must uphold the Constitution and respect the judicial process, period. For you, this means an AG who will operate within established legal frameworks, ensuring stability and predictability in how state law is applied, rather than creating legal chaos through defiance. **Joe Jaworski** offers an even shorter answer: Yes, they do. He calls it the “Rule of Law.” He adds that a skilled, ethical lawyer understands this, but “Political hacks… not so much.” This direct response underscores his commitment to a core legal principle. For Texans, this commitment means the state’s chief legal officer would respect court decisions, preventing the kind of legal uncertainty and potential constitutional crises that can arise when executive officials defy judicial orders. It's about maintaining order and trust in government. **Nathan Johnson** is running for office, in part, to reverse what he sees as a growing disrespect for the rule of law and separation of powers by people like Ken Paxton and Donald Trump. He says in cases where he believed a court case was decided incorrectly (which he expects will happen), he would appeal the ruling on behalf of the state and, if appropriate, ask for a stay – a temporary pause – on the lower court’s decision. But without a stay, he believes the state should honor the rule of law by complying with judicial rulings. This detailed answer explains the proper legal mechanisms for challenging a ruling without defying it, which is essential for preserving the integrity of the judiciary and ensuring that the law applies equally to all, including state government itself. It's how your legal system is supposed to function. ### Do you believe the attorney general’s office should be given more independent criminal prosecutorial authority? This is a huge question about the fundamental structure of Texas’s criminal justice system. In Texas, criminal prosecution generally falls to local district attorneys, not the AG. Expanding the AG’s criminal power would be a significant shift. **Tony Box** thinks the AG’s office *should* have more independent criminal prosecutorial authority in certain areas, for example, when it comes to prosecuting fraudsters. However, he stresses that this additional authority must be constitutional. He specifically believes that the asserted power to prosecute voter fraud, as seen under Paxton, is ill-advised and unconstitutional, a position that has been backed up by courts. This approach suggests a willingness to selectively expand the AG’s criminal role where there's a clear public benefit, like complex white-collar fraud cases, but only if it respects the constitutional boundaries, such as those that restrict the AG’s direct involvement in election-related criminal matters, ensuring that the division of powers is maintained. **Joe Jaworski** gives a definitive “No.” He believes the Texas Attorney General, with only a few clearly defined statutory exceptions, is fundamentally a civil law authority, and it needs to stay that way. He says on the rare occasions when criminal justice matters come up, a good Texas Attorney General should build strong relationships with local District Attorneys across the state to handle those issues. He argues that this isn't just his opinion; it’s what the Texas Constitution requires. He even suggests that this kind of collaboration is only possible with a Democrat AG because he believes Republicans have abandoned their support for local decision-making. This stance strongly defends the traditional constitutional division of labor, where local DAs handle most criminal matters, thus keeping criminal prosecutorial power decentralized and accountable to local voters, which directly affects how justice is administered in your community. **Nathan Johnson** highlights a critical point: under current law, the Legislature can't just pass a bill to give the Attorney General prosecutorial authority that the Texas Constitution explicitly gives to district attorneys. So, any significant expansion would likely need a constitutional amendment. He then asks whether now is even the right time to expand the AG’s powers, given what he calls Ken Paxton’s “grotesquely partisan weaponization” of AG powers and Donald Trump’s similar approach to the Department of Justice. Johnson argues that a better path is for the AG’s office to use its *current* powers and resources more effectively to support investigations and prosecutions by district and county attorneys, where the Constitution actually places that authority and where DAs are accountable to voters. This position prioritizes constitutional fidelity and expresses a strong concern about the potential for abuse of power if the AG’s criminal authority were expanded, directly impacting how you view the fairness and impartiality of statewide law enforcement actions. ### Paxton has refused to represent state agencies in certain lawsuits — at least 75 times in a recent two-year period — forcing agencies to hire outside counsel. Does the OAG have a responsibility to defend all state agencies in-house? This issue cuts to the core of the AG's duty to its own state government and raises questions about fiscal responsibility when state agencies are forced to spend taxpayer money on outside legal help. **Tony Box** says his role as Attorney General would be to focus on what’s constitutional. As he’s stated, if a law is constitutional, he will defend it; if it’s not, he won’t. So, he wouldn’t defend unconstitutional policies put forward by state agencies. However, he observes that many of Paxton’s decisions to represent or not represent agencies seem to be driven by his personal connections and the interests of his political friends – which, Box says, shouldn’t surprise anyone by now. This means he would use his legal judgment to determine the constitutionality of policies before defending them, a crucial ethical standard. For you, this could mean an AG who scrutinizes state actions more carefully and avoids wasting your money defending legally indefensible positions, but might also mean some agencies would still need to seek outside counsel if their actions are deemed unconstitutional by the AG. **Joe Jaworski** firmly believes the OAG has this responsibility, with one limited exception. He says that the AG must adhere to Rule 3.01 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that a lawyer shouldn’t bring or defend a proceeding unless they reasonably believe there’s a non-frivolous basis for doing so. This answer ties the AG’s duty directly to professional ethical standards for lawyers. By invoking this rule, Jaworski indicates that the AG would be bound by an ethical duty to not pursue or defend cases that lack merit, which protects the integrity of the legal system and prevents the state from engaging in wasteful or baseless litigation at your expense. **Nathan Johnson** points to both the state Constitution and Texas Government Code section 402.021, which explicitly assign the AG the duty to represent the state in the Texas Supreme Court and all lower courts of appeal. Representing the state includes representing state agencies. He acknowledges that attorneys general have occasionally declined representation historically, but he finds the practice suspect. If the AG does decline (perhaps due to a conflict of interest), Johnson notes that the AG must still approve any outside counsel for the agency. The AG can't just leave an agency without representation. Johnson pledges to fulfill the duties of the office according to his oath, including the discretionary exercise of his independent legal judgment in presenting the state's position in any dispute with an agency. This detailed explanation clarifies the legal obligations of the AG, emphasizing that the office cannot simply abandon a state agency in legal need. It means the AG would be legally and ethically bound to ensure representation, which protects the state’s operations and your taxpayer dollars from unnecessary legal fees or potential default judgments. ### Would you defend laws passed by the Legislature or executive actions by Gov. Greg Abbott if you disagreed with them ideologically? This question gets to the heart of the AG’s role as the state’s chief legal counsel: whether personal political views should influence the defense of state laws and actions. It's about the tension between an AG's oath to the Constitution and their policy preferences. **Tony Box** states he wouldn’t defend unconstitutional laws. He emphasizes that he’s sworn an oath to the Constitution many times since he was 18, and that oath continues. The dividing line for him isn't his personal ideology, but whether a law is constitutional. If a law is constitutional and legally defensible, he says he’d defend it regardless of his personal views. But he wouldn’t waste taxpayer dollars defending laws that are clearly unconstitutional, citing racially gerrymandered maps as an example, which are high on his list for review. His standard is: does it serve the Constitution and the people of Texas? This approach promises a legal defense based purely on constitutional analysis, potentially challenging laws that infringe on voting rights or other fundamental protections, while still defending valid laws, providing a safeguard against legislative overreach at your constitutional expense. **Joe Jaworski** would not defend laws and executive actions that he reasonably believes are unconstitutional or the result of corruption. He lists several recent examples: the 89th Legislature’s Ten Commandments Law, Governor Abbott sending the Texas National Guard to Chicago, and the school voucher bill passed by a special session of the 89th Legislature. He says there are many more such examples. This is a clear signal that he would actively refuse to defend state actions he deems legally flawed or corrupt, directly impacting the implementation and enforceability of controversial state policies. For you, this could mean that certain laws passed by the Legislature or actions taken by the Governor would face strong legal challenges from the state’s own top attorney, potentially limiting their impact or even leading to their overturn in court, especially on issues like religious freedom or the use of state resources. **Nathan Johnson** believes in carrying out the responsibilities of the office, which includes defending laws he might personally dislike. However, he clarifies that representing the state doesn’t mean he has to adopt a statutory interpretation favored by the governor or the Legislature. And, he stresses, it certainly doesn’t mean taking the position that an unconstitutional law *isn't* unconstitutional, or that a conflict within or among laws must be resolved in a partisan way to please Republican leadership. This nuanced view indicates a commitment to the AG’s role as an independent legal voice, even when defending laws he might oppose politically. For you, this means an AG who will defend state laws, but will do so with independent legal judgment, ensuring that the defense is constitutionally sound and not merely a political rubber stamp, which protects the integrity of the state’s legal positions. ### Paxton has relied on outside counsel for lawsuits against Big Tech and pharmaceutical companies, among other cases. Would you continue that practice? This question addresses the use of private law firms by the AG’s office, often on contingency fees, which can be highly lucrative for the firms but also raise questions about cost-effectiveness, transparency, and potential conflicts of interest for your taxpayer dollars. **Tony Box** says he’s not fundamentally opposed to using outside counsel. He acknowledges that private firms can offer many benefits, like specialized expertise on very technical issues and extra capacity, which allows state employees to focus on other important work. For him, the key question is whether Texans are getting value for their taxpayer money and achieving results. He’d evaluate each case on its merits. This moderate stance suggests he would continue the practice but with stricter oversight to ensure fiscal responsibility and tangible benefits for the state. For you, this means a balanced approach where outside expertise could still be leveraged for complex cases, but with a sharper eye on cost and outcomes, avoiding unnecessary expenditures on private lawyers. **Joe Jaworski** says he would not continue “that practice.” He argues that Paxton has driven away top legal talent from the Texas AG’s office with his behavior. He also notes Paxton’s habit of hiring competent law firms, awarding them hefty contingent fee contracts, and then, “curiously,” OAG staff often end up working at those very firms. Jaworski would instead recruit and hire excellent trial attorneys to serve Texas, rebuilding the consumer protection and other divisions so the office could handle its own cases, win verdicts, and collect judgments without paying 40% of everything won to outside firms. While he can imagine occasions to hire great lawyers, he pledges to scrupulously follow the rules for retaining outside counsel outlined in Texas Government Code section 2254.103(d). This position signals a major shift towards building robust in-house legal capabilities and a strong ethical stance against potential conflicts of interest, potentially saving you millions in legal fees and ensuring greater accountability in the state's legal representation. **Nathan Johnson** would not continue the practice at the same level. He concedes there might be times when a specific firm or group of attorneys has unique expertise worth hiring. But his plan is to recruit and *keep* top-tier lawyers and expert staff at the OAG, making the need to outsource or reinforce in-house capabilities exceptional, not routine. He specifically states that taxpayers wouldn't have to pay exorbitant hourly rates for effective legal representation against corporate giants. He also suggests that for massive cases requiring huge resources, attorneys general from multiple states often successfully combine forces. Furthermore, he emphasizes that the terms of representation must not incentivize quick, attention-grabbing settlements over meaningful changes in market behavior, because a big settlement number gets headlines, but consumers are truly protected when harmful behavior actually stops. This approach focuses on strategic investment in the OAG’s internal talent and collaborative, impactful litigation that genuinely protects your interests as a consumer and taxpayer, rather than just chasing headlines or large fees for private firms. ### Do you agree with Paxton’s current interpretation of open records law, and if not, what would you change about the handling of public records? Open records laws, like the Texas Public Information Act, are fundamental to governmental transparency and your right to know what your public officials are doing. The AG's interpretation of these laws can have a huge impact on public accountability. **Tony Box** observes that Paxton’s interpretation of open records law seems to change depending on the circumstances and the people involved – basically, his whims and who he wants to protect. Box says his own approach would be transparent and consistent with Texas law. He plans to model the handling of requests on the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), unless it conflicts with Texas law. This commitment to consistency and a federal standard suggests a more even-handed and transparent application of open records laws. For you, this means a better chance of getting access to public information, reducing the likelihood that officials can selectively hide or reveal documents based on political convenience, which helps maintain trust in government. **Joe Jaworski** explicitly states that he doesn't agree with Ken Paxton’s default approach, which he characterizes as “hide the records from public scrutiny.” As Attorney General, Jaworski says he would embrace a level of transparency that would be historic in Texas government. When interpreting the Texas Open Records and Open Meetings Acts, he would honor the original intent of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” movement that emerged after the Watergate scandal. This strong stance on transparency indicates a significant departure from current practices, aiming to make state government operations far more accessible to you. It means a proactive approach to releasing information and a presumption in favor of disclosure, reinforcing your fundamental right to oversee your government. **Nathan Johnson** notes that Paxton appears to have a history of interpreting open records laws narrowly when he or other Republican leaders want to conceal information, and broadly when he wants to use information to advance his right-wing narrative. He calls the “transparency” in Paxton’s approach “one-way.” Johnson would apply the law consistently and without bias, working within legal boundaries to ensure public access to public information. As a state senator, he’s actually filed seven bills aimed at making government offices more responsive to public information requests (and managed to pass one of them). This commitment, backed by his legislative record, suggests an AG who would be a champion for public access to government information, ensuring that open records laws are applied fairly and robustly, giving you a better chance to hold your elected officials accountable.