On November 15, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., delivered a temporary setback in a lawsuit designed to force the District to let its voters choose an Attorney General in the 2014 election. The case was filed by Paul Zuckerberg, who wants to run for D.C. Attorney General as a Democrat in the 2014 election.

There has never before been an election in D.C. for Attorney General of the District. But in 2010, the voters passed a charter amendment saying voters would start choosing the Attorney General in 2014. However, in 2013, the City Council passed a bill, cancelling the 2014 election for that office. Zukerberg sued, arguing that the City Council can’t override the Charter. However, technically, the 2013 bill cancelling the election isn’t in effect yet. That is because Congress has a right to review all laws passed by the D.C. City Council and veto laws if it wishes, within 30 days. The time period for Congressional review of the bill isn’t up yet. The 30 days refers only to days in which Congress is in session, not 30 calendar days, so the time period is really more than 30 calendar days.

The decision says that Zukerberg is free to re-file his lawsuit when that period is up. It is very rare for Congress to veto an act of the D.C. City Council. Congress is usually far too distracted with other business to look at the details of what the D.C. city council does. IT is extremely likely that Congress will do nothing, and that the repeal bill will soon take effect. See this story, which has a copy of the court decision.

The 2010 vote to elect an Attorney General was one more instance of the District of Columbia trying to persuade the rest of the nation that it deserves statehood. Normally a city elects a District Attorney and/or a City Attorney, not an Attorney General. “Attorney General” is typically a state office.