As a politically engaged citizen, I try to approach races for elected officials with a strong mixture of personal research, conversations with fellow Nevadans and whiskey. The last element, of course, is optional, but it doesn't hurt. It's not always easy or fun to figure out who to vote for and, more than that, it's painful to cast a ballot based on little more than name recognition, an unrelated identifier or, worse, eeny-meeny-ism. But we've all done it. 

Look, when we elect people to represent us in the various proxy roles as leaders of our groups (however they're broken down — by neighborhood, municipality, county, etc.), it shouldn't be an endeavor taken lightly. And I'm not saying we should get drunk and vote, but sometimes our choices are a bitter pill requiring something strong to help us wash it all down. And to be honest, it's less of a guilt hangover than voting for the ever-popular "None of the above."

In a perfect world, we'd only elect folks who are proven problem-solvers and excellent administrators. Folks who wisely and fairly apply policies that benefit as many people as possible while putting aside self-interest, conflicts or favors. Spoiler: We don't live in a perfect world, and people without many of the necessary skills often find a way to get elected. Understandable. It's hard to discern who's got the goods amid the rhetoric of attack ads, ambiguous promises on flyers and opaque "endorsements" typically presented as a list or a logo rather than a measured, accessible analysis.

What further complicates the process is that some positions are either so obscure or complicated that most voters don't even know what the office does, let alone who would make a good person to elect to that role. And apart from the state controller (maybe county comptroller?), the most likely office about which too many everyday citizens lack a full understanding is the attorney general. 

Recently, I was discussing the various candidates for this office (some of whom are debating live tonight in Las Vegas if you can score a ticket) with highly educated, non-lawyer friends. A few minutes into the conversation, one asked (and the others nodded in support) why Steve Wolfson wasn't running for re-election as attorney general. I explained that Wolfson is the Clark County district attorney, who is running for re-election (albeit unopposed), and that the attorney general is a completely different position with a vastly different role from the head of the county prosecutor's office. I get the confusion.

So what does our attorney general do?

Let's start with the etymology. It's about broad responsibilities, not the equivalent or even a derivative of a military rank. That's why we don't have an attorney major or attorney privates (as opposed to private attorneys). And contrary to the widely used monikers that our AG is somehow the "top cop" or "chief prosecutor for the state," those, too, are misnomers.

The attorney general is not the boss of the district attorneys such as Wolfson, or of the various sheriffs. Nor does the attorney general spend most of their time and resources investigating or prosecuting major criminal cases. It's the DA, not the AG, who does those high-profile murder, DUI death, sexual assault, kidnapping, gang violence, drug trials and the like that grab headlines. And while the AG does prosecute some cases (notably, individuals or even groups committing mortgage, election or government assistance fraud, and most crimes committed by people who are already in prison), they are far less likely to be protracted or slated to go to trial compared to other offices that participate in the criminal justice system. 

I believe much of the bewilderment about the role stems from the fact that a district attorney's office announces it represents the "state" in criminal cases (e.g., The State of Nevada v. O.J. Simpson), even though it's a county entity. Likewise, sometimes big cases involving mass mortgage, investment, political or nonprofit fraud (e.g., U.S. v. Michele Fiore), as well as subjects such as possession of child porn, felons in possession of a firearm and bribery by election officials (does anyone remember Operation G-Sting?) get initiated against Nevadans by the U.S. attorney. The U.S. attorney in Nevada was (technically is?) Sigal Chattah, who works in conjunction with the Department of Justice, which is led by, you guessed it, the "attorney general." But the U.S. attorney general has differing responsibilities from their state-level counterparts. (That is, when they're not getting fired by the president for allegedly failing to go after perceived political rivals).

Likewise, AGs typically don't physically appear in courtrooms to personally prosecute or defend cases, absent — and I'll just say it — a photo op for something political. Indeed, and not unexpectedly, most government bodies have specialized attorneys and staff who do most of the heavy lifting. More importantly, the AG must have the administrative skills to manage an office of attorneys, investigators, analysts, legal assistants and the like to accomplish the broader goals.

So what is the number one thing the attorney general does?  

Well, day-to-day, it's likely giving advice to government boards and bodies through their office's legion of attorneys who get these assignments. It specifically entails advising these entities about what they can or cannot do by law as well as, perhaps most prominently, following open meeting rules and proper procedures. The attorney general, in this capacity, is the boss tasked with shepherding the process with administrative acumen and policy directives, and with maintaining overarching legal propriety. 

In other words, the AG is more of a director of legal advice and policy. Of course, that doesn't have the zing of "top cop" but it's more accurate. It's a good role for a smart lawyer who understands how the state's executive offices function and who has excellent organizational and management skills.

Another big job of the attorney general is representing the state when it is sued or sues entities, including the federal government, on behalf of citizens. The latter naturally flows from the political philosophy of the officeholder. 

In other words, the AG picks the targets. For example, our current Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford engaged in litigation to push back against the Trump administration's efforts to obtain election data, curtail mail-in ballots, impose purportedly unauthorized tariffs and end Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The office was also involved in litigation to hold social media producers accountable for fostering addiction and to challenge unfair real estate listing practices.

By contrast, his Republican predecessor, Attorney General Adam Laxalt, sued over the Obama administration's environmental and labor regulations, went after Wells Fargo Bank (alongside 49 other states and the District of Columbia) for deceptive practices and, as was the trend at the time, initiated Nevada's lawsuits against Big Pharma (which ultimately were continued and settled under Ford).

It's important to note that these lawsuits aren't always handled internally. Sometimes (and not without controversy), the primary responsibility for the litigation is lawfully contracted out to private law firms. So another job of the AG is to help decide which lawsuits to pursue, even though it can sometimes conflict with the governor's priorities. 

But the AG has independent authority. This means if an AG wants to sue the Trump administration and a governor is a President Donald Trump sycophant (purely hypothetical here), there's little that can stop it. 

The Nevada attorney general also contends with lawsuits concerning people who are incarcerated, which often raise vitally important issues, including humane treatment. These rarely go to trial but tend to be hashed out in various arguments, briefs and negotiations. Also noteworthy is the AG's important, self-explanatory Bureau of Consumer Protection. The AG is also a named party whenever a law passed by the Legislature is challenged on constitutional grounds. 

Finally, the attorney general is, in theory, a potential gatekeeper against corrupt politicians at all levels of government. This one is the all-important but oft-anemic public-integrity role of the AG's office. The way it works is a little complicated, but one of the most important responsibilities of the attorney general from my vantage is to be a force of independence and even a watchdog of government officials — no matter who they are. I believe that means a good AG would be fearless in taking on any entity within the state (even on the county and city level) where they see corruption or unconstitutional practices, especially those that affect the rights of Nevada citizens. 

Could that mean, under the right circumstances, a showdown with, say, a county district attorney or a police department? Well, yeah. As I said, the process under Nevada law is complicated, but it would absolutely be appropriate and frankly righteous for our AG to look into things that seem fishy or clearly infringe on the rights of Nevada citizens. 

In this age when new tech and policies affect the privacy and security of the public at large, keeping the government and law enforcement in check is vital. It would be nice to have an AG looking out for all of us whenever any entity crosses the line — whether that be the police, DA or a random clerk. Figuring out who has the chutzpah to keep other elected officials accountable would be a big plus.

Independence is the key and, hopefully, whoever gets elected will, at a minimum, exhibit that one very important trait for all Nevadans. That would be an attorney general whom this rank-and-file attorney would formally salute! And now you know what an AG does! Vote smart.

Dayvid Figler is a criminal defense attorney, freelance essayist and former host of the City Cast Las Vegas podcast. He received the State Bar of Nevada's Medal of Justice in 2019. He also publishes a Substack that muses about all things Las Vegas.