This is what doesn’t make sense to me. The legislative branch can make laws but if the executive branch wants to ignore it they bloody well can because nobody can tell them what to do? I’m sorry this sounds so crass; I should get some other work done and I’m getting cranky at my own lack of self-control to ration my time better. What I’m getting at is how we keep the executive branch accountable to following the laws if they are never specifically told they have to do certain things.
And in the case with Donofrio, where a citizen was suing the SOS for not meeting the general requirement of vetting eligibility - it was decided, IIRC, that because the law didn’t say, “SOS, you must get a copy of the BC. You must...”, that the SOS can get away with doing absolutely NOTHING to vet eligibility, which is exactly what she did when she put Roger Calero on the ballot. So nobody could hold the SOS responsible for obeying the law unless it was spelled out in explicit detail what the requirements were.
I imagine the same thing would be true for an AG, then. The AG could sit on his duffer all day long while the mob ran wild and nobody could do a darn thing about it.
Again, I’m sorry for the tone of this. I am just so frustrated by the lawlessness and by the political dances between the powers-that-be that seem to protect the “public servants” from ever having to serve the public, obey the laws, or be held accountable by anybody for doing anything.