SACRAMENTO, CA - California is known for new ideas in technology, fashion, and entertainment. Now comes a new idea for government in which elected officials, who swear to uphold the law, only enforce the laws they like.

California law states that in state hiring, education, and contracting, the government shall not give preference to, or against, anyone on account of race, ethnicity, or gender. This became law through the voters of California, who passed it in the form of Proposition 209, five years ago this month.

As a state senator, Bill Lockyer opposed Proposition 209. In 1998 he became Attorney General, the state’s highest law enforcement official. In that office he refuses to enforce the measure. This had been known for some time but became apparent on November 6, when Ward Connerly, who led the drive to abolish state racial discrimination, charged that the Attorney General was shirking his duties. It is a serious charge, but the Attorney General did not respond personally. He charged an underling, Nathan Barankin, with the task.

The Attorney General, it might be recalled, has been the most shrill voice in the state Democrats’ campaign to explain the state’s energy woes by demonizing the oil companies. Lockyer said he wanted to personally escort Enron chairman Ken Lay to a cell occupied by a tattooed guy named Spike. The trouble was neither Mr. Lockyer’s office nor any investigative panel had filed any charges against Enron or other energy companies. The Attorney General has also been riding herd on Microsoft, at the very time when the anti-trust case against the company is running out of steam. But while he is an inquisitor with software and energy companies, Lockyer sees his role differently with regard to government agencies. When they do something wrong, instead of prosecuting them, he defends them.

As his spokesman Barankin explained it, Lockyer sees his role as that of the state’s defender. He provides advice to state agencies. If one of those agencies refuses to hire, say, African Americans, the Attorney General of California wants the aggrieved person or persons to hire a private attorney and sue the agency. It is as though the police come upon a woman being chased by a man with a knife and, instead of pursuing him, the officers instead explain to the woman that she should hire a good bodyguard. There was another novel twist to the Attorney General’s defense.

“The Attorney General’s priority right now is protecting the public, not being Ward Connerly’s employment police,” said his spokesman. But Attorney General Lockyer has given no clue about what he is doing to make the state more secure in the wake of September 11. Californians do know that he is wasting time and money on dubious ventures, and failing to enforce state law. A case could be made that the Attorney General should step down, but a similar case shows that he may vacate his office under different circumstances.

As Chief Justice of California’s Supreme Court, Rose Bird overturned every death penalty case that came to her because she was personally opposed to the death penalty. When voters got the chance, out she went. Next year they may do the same for a state Attorney General who talks tough but puts his personal preferences above the law.

K. Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He can be reached via email at klbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.