Rep. Janet Mills of Farmington is a landmark choice for attorney general, but not because she’s the first woman to hold the prestigious office. She is the latest in a long tradition of women holding powerful political positions in Maine.

Rather, it is Mills’ 15 years as district attorney for Androscoggin, Franklin and Oxford counties that separates her from previous attorneys general, precious few of whom rose from the prosecutorial ranks.

(She was the first female district attorney in New England, it should be noted.)

This background is novel for the AG’s office, which has been historically stewarded by attorneys with experience in civil law. Under Mills, a more assertive, activist AG’s office with heightened public visibility is entirely possible.

She brings a prosecutor’s swagger to the position, along with her keen political acumen, a potent combination which hasn’t been present in Maine’s attorney general in several decades, if ever.

This would depart from the style of outgoing Attorney General Steven Rowe, who served with dignity and grace, and used his influence to leverage attention on important policy issues, such as early childhood education.

Prior to being attorney general, Rowe was an in-house counsel for Unum Provident. It’s not a stretch to anticipate different days ahead.

Which, given Mills’ hard-fought victory over two strong candidates, John Brautigam and Sean Faircloth, in the Democratic caucus, and broad bipartisan support for her candidacy, shows her former colleagues endorse this tack.

Her selection, as well, could invalidate some criticism leveled at Maine’s peculiar manner of filling the office. Of states, only Maine lets its Legislature – as a collective – elect the attorney general.

Elsewhere, AGs are either popularly elected or gubernatorially appointed. Each has its pros and cons.

Most often, Maine’s system is disparaged as discouraging good candidates, by being a popularity contest among members of the majority party in the House. (Votes of representatives and senators are weighted equally, which gives House members a built-in advantage.)

By choosing Mills, though, the Legislature illustrated this process can produce strong results; she would arguably have been a formidable candidate even without her years of service in the Legislature.

Should this system be changed if it works? It seems the process is debated because it’s different, not because it’s inferior. If another way can be proven superior, perhaps lawmakers should consider changing it.

Until then, we’re pleased with the process and results.

Mills is the right choice for attorney general.