jonetta rose barras: Race posturing, an information deficit and other matters in the DC attorney general’s election
Ryan Jones, Brian Schwalb and Bruce Spiva — the three candidates vying to become DC’s second elected attorney general — appear to be reading from the playbook developed by DC Council member Kenyan McDuffie prior to suspending his campaign. Specifically, each has sought to portray himself in campaign appearances and published literature as a “race man” or at least a racial equity disciple and civil rights defender while donning the label of “The People’s Lawyer.”
The embrace of those images appears to be critical to each of the remaining candidates’ ability to galvanize the support of the Black and brown electorate, without which victory is difficult to achieve. That task may be easier for Jones and Spiva, who are both African American; it’s harder for Schwalb, who is white.
“Spiva is running a bifurcated campaign,” said longtime political operative Chuck Thies, who for a few months was a consultant to McDuffie’s campaign. “[Spiva] is targeting African Americans [and] at the same time approaching left-leaning whites.
“He may be running the most sophisticated campaign, and he is running circles around Brian Schwalb,” continued Thies, cautioning that no one should consider Jones “an also-ran. The placement of his [campaign] yard signs suggests he is targeting high-turnout African American precincts.”
The indisputable pursuit of voters from communities of color has produced nauseating pandering and altered the quality and depth of the discussion necessary to properly educate the entire public about the role, responsibility and importance of the AG within the pantheon of DC’s political leaders. The debate held earlier this week, organized by the DC Office of Campaign Finance, seemed designed to overcome the latter problem.
However, race politics dominate. It has resulted in the distribution of literature by Schwalb’s campaign that has been described by several people as unprecedented and deliberately misleading.
Judge for yourself: At the top of one brochure are the words “Democrat Brian Schwalb for Attorney General.” Instead of his photo, however, the only image on the cover is that of the current AG Karl Racine, who is Black and who has endorsed Schwalb.
“This definitely makes it look like the guy pictured is Brian Schwalb when it’s in fact Karl Racine,” Scott Goldstein, an education advocate, wrote on Twitter. “Don’t think I’ve ever seen this approach before with the endorser only on the cover.”
Thies agreed. “Schwalb disappeared almost the entire month of April and early May. When he reappeared, he wrapped himself in Karl Racine to the point he and Karl are indistinguishable.”
A television ad that features Racine and Schwalb has the same interchangeable, “twinsie” feeling: In one scene they are wearing similarly colored shirts; later they are both wearing white shirts without ties and dark blue suit jackets. The message: Schwalb is Racine — or at least like Racine.
No one should think any of this is coincidental. Professional propagandists and political operatives are familiar with the technique being deployed. It’s called transfer. The idea is to take the attributes of someone who is favored in the community or in a field and transfer them to another individual who is either unknown or who lacks the same popularity.
Schwalb’s campaign spokesperson Brenna Crombie did not respond to my multiple emails requesting a comment.
I requested an interview with Racine to discuss the various advertisements. “AG Racine isn’t available for an interview,” his spokesperson said in an email that noted he has in the past endorsed several individuals in political races.
Then the correspondence became yet another endorsement of Racine’s favored candidate: “Brian Schwalb is a talented and respected lawyer who knows what it takes to stand up against bad actors and powerful interests. I’m proud to support him to be the next Attorney General.”
It’s true Racine has endorsed candidates in previous political races. This time around, he has gone all-in, intent on passing the baton to his former colleague at a private law firm.
Prior to his election in 2014, Racine was the managing partner at Venable LLP; Schwalb was previously the firm’s vice chair and continues to serve as the partner-in-charge of Venable’s DC office. For a time, they worked at the firm together.
To be fair, Schwalb has secured the endorsement of other individuals and organizations, including The Washington Post.
The questionable value of those other endorsements may be what is animating Schwalb, said Thies. He called the Post endorsement a “kiss of death for candidates seeking Black votes. It does mean something if you’re running in Ward 3,” he said.
There’s also the matter of how Racine presents himself — and is presented — in campaign appearances.
“I don’t think Karl should be using his title. I don’t think the office belongs to him; it belongs to the people,” added Thies.
I agree. Perhaps the DC Board of Ethics and Government Accountability along with the general counsel for the DC Council should review how the city’s elected officials have repeatedly used their offices, each of which is a government resource, to advance the interests of their allies and themselves.
I asked Jones and Spiva for their reactions to the Schwalb brochure.
“Bruce is proud to be running on his own record and standing on his own merits as a candidate,” a spokesperson for Spiva’s campaign said in an email response. “He has spent the past 30 years using the law to fight for everyday people and that’s what voters across DC are hearing from our campaign on TV, in the mail, and on the doors.”
It’s all campaign, all the time.
“We have one candidate who is trying to prove he can throw a football to Black kids and another presenting himself as a civil rights leader,” said Jones, referring to television ads being run by his opponents. He also referenced what he called “mudslinging” between Schwalb and Spiva — who, interestingly, were in the same class at Harvard Law School.
“We’re not talking about the specifics of the job, and that’s a disservice to District residents,” continued Jones. He argued that Racine is not the gold standard and cited as proof cases like the ones against Amazon and former President Donald Trump. Those “wasted people’s time and energy.”
“There are gaps,” Jones said of the OAG’s operations under Racine. “It has to change.”
What should those changes be?
Currently, the OAG functions as a glorified version of the former corporation counsel; it is the legal representative for the DC government. Under Racine, however, it has exploded to twice its former size, gobbling — like the old Pac-Man computer game — responsibilities previously held by other agencies. Further, it has been aggressive in filing consumer-protection lawsuits.
However, functions normally assigned to attorneys general or district attorneys in other states — particularly the prosecution of felonies committed by adults, handled here by the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — have eluded the District’s AG. Racine hasn’t mounted an aggressive effort to alter that fact, whether that’s by convincing Congress to act or turning to the federal courts for relief.
During the OCF debate this week, the candidates seemed to embrace the OAG as currently configured. They talked about divisions or legal areas on which they would focus: Jones mentioned he would focus on cybercrime, while Spiva discussed child support and Schwalb offered that he would enhance community engagement efforts in the office. When the moderator referenced the lack of certain prosecutorial authority, none of the candidates seized the moment to declare a determination to break from that past.
“The AG has a wealth of unused, untapped powers. The attorney general could write an opinion that has the force and effect of law,” explained Johnny Barnes, a longtime civil rights lawyer and criminal justice reform advocate. “It’s a powerful office that rivals the mayor, if you do it right.”
Barnes cited McDuffie’s case as an example: “The AG could have written an opinion, if Mr. Racine hadn’t already endorsed one of the other candidates.”
Even beyond that, however, Barnes said Racine could “have played Commanders’ football, going 10 yards at a time. He could have been an active attorney general who pushes for statehood. That is the greatest failure of our current attorney general.
“It’s not a minor undertaking. I think if you’re serious about leading the AG’s office, there should be a serious conversation about what you are going to do.”
Lateefah Williams shares Barnes’ dissatisfaction with the rulings by the DC Board of Elections and the DC Court of Appeals that pushed McDuffie out of the competition. She ran in the first race in 2014 and sought an opinion then about the qualifications law.
In an interview this week, she told me she was “shocked” by the ruling. “It does not seem to be consistent with my interpretation of the statute,” she said.
After that 2014 election, Williams was employed for several years at the OAG under Racine. She praised the work he has done as the first person elected to that position, his predecessors having been appointed. However, “there are other areas he may not have gotten to. Candidates should come forth with ideas about how to move the office forward and meld their new ideas with the old.”
She suggested the office could secure additional authority using an incremental approach. “I’m a huge proponent of DC statehood, but there are many ways short of statehood we could be pushing this needle. Someone has to be comfortable with that idea and that plan.”
Would the candidates use the office, if elected, to pursue statehood more aggressively? Would they propose reforms that could take the OAG to the next level, bringing it to parity with other state attorneys general?
Voters might be interested in hearing solid plans. But who will suggest that kind of conversation? Not the current AG; he’s too busy fronting for his friend and trying to get him elected.
That means voters are on their own. Ask questions. Demand real answers — not pandering.
jonetta rose barras is an author and freelance journalist, covering national and local issues including politics, childhood trauma, public education, economic development and urban public policies. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.
Did Ms. Williams mention why she’s not running for AG in this election? I like her thinking– very smart to check out the qualifications before getting in the race in 2014.