The Denver Gazette’s debate coverage offered an unusually revealing look at what Colorado Democrats think the attorney general’s office is for. On paper, the candidates were debating experience, water law, consumer protection, election issues, and legal priorities. In practice, much of the conversation kept circling back to one question: who is best positioned to take on Donald Trump. That may be a perfectly legitimate topic. It just should not be the entire job description.
The four Democratic candidates, Jena Griswold, David Seligman, Hetal Doshi, and Michael Dougherty, spent much of the evening discussing lawsuits against the Trump administration, election-related controversies, and competing theories about what kind of person should serve as Colorado’s top lawyer. Should the attorney general be a courtroom veteran? A manager? A political fighter? The debate repeatedly returned to that divide.
The Bullet Point Brief
- The central debate was not really left versus right. It was lawyer versus activist. Several candidates argued courtroom experience matters because the attorney general is, in fact, supposed to be an attorney.
- Trump dominated major portions of the discussion, with candidates debating how aggressively Colorado should join lawsuits against the administration. Some candidates openly measured success by the number of lawsuits filed.
- Water policy received serious attention, and rightly so. Colorado River negotiations and Nebraska’s Perkins Canal lawsuit are not political talking points. They are existential issues for Colorado’s future.
- The Tina Peters controversy surfaced as well, with candidates offering varying criticisms of Governor Polis’ commutation decision while largely framing the issue through partisan and political lenses.
- The most revealing exchange may have been the argument over whether the next attorney general should be a courtroom practitioner or a political figure. That is not a small distinction. It is the whole job.
My Bottom Line
Again, these are Democrats.
And that matters because they belong to the governing coalition that has controlled Colorado’s trajectory for years while affordability worsened, housing costs exploded, public confidence declined, and government grew increasingly comfortable inserting itself into every corner of daily life. But what struck me most about this debate was not ideology.
It was priorities.
The attorney general is not supposed to be Colorado’s full-time cable-news plaintiff. The attorney general is the state’s lawyer. That means boring things matter. Judgment matters. Experience matters. Water law matters. Consumer protection matters. Public corruption matters. Criminal justice matters. Constitutional restraint matters. Public trust matters.
Yet much of this debate felt like an audition for who could best lead the next anti-Trump lawsuit tour.
Now, to be clear, there are absolutely times when states should challenge federal overreach. Republicans and Democrats have both done it. Sometimes appropriately. Sometimes performatively. The question is whether Colorado’s attorney general views litigation as a legal tool or as campaign merchandise. There is a difference.
One of the more interesting moments came when candidates debated courtroom experience itself. Several argued the office requires someone who has actually spent significant time litigating complex cases. Others emphasized management, administration, and political leadership. That may sound like an inside-baseball argument, but it gets to the heart of what voters should want from the office.
Is the attorney general primarily a lawyer? Or is the attorney general a partisan combat mascot with a law license? Because increasingly, those are not the same thing.
The water discussion highlighted the contrast. Colorado’s water future is not a hashtag. The Colorado River negotiations are not social media content. Nebraska’s canal fight is not campaign branding.
These are real legal battles with enormous consequences for farmers, ranchers, cities, businesses, and future generations of Coloradans. They require expertise, discipline, and competence. They require someone interested in winning cases, not simply winning headlines. And that is ultimately what I found missing from much of this conversation.
Colorado voters deserve an attorney general focused on Colorado first. Not donor applause. Not activist validation. Not cable television appearances. Not resistance cosplay with better stationery.
The office exists to pursue justice, defend the state’s interests, protect constitutional government, and serve the people of Colorado.
The candidates spent a lot of time discussing who could fight.
I would have liked to hear more about who could govern.
Source: The Denver Gazette
Share your thoughts...