Sheriff elections?

[Yakko77]

Why is the office of Sheriff and elected office? I'm sure there's plenty of politics involved but it's still more of LE job than a political job is it not? I don't remember seeing Fire Chief on my last few ballots so why do we elect the Sheriff?

Shouldn't the Sheriff be appointed by the mayor based on his/her experience, LE record and other professional factors? This suddenly became an issue of interest because the two guys who are running for Sheriff here in Omaha, NE are getting pretty negaitive in their TV ads against each other. One of the candidates (Sam Christinsen) is ALOT more dirty in his ads which I really hate. Most of his ads explain what's "bad" about the current sheriff rather than what he as the next sheriff would do to correct these "wrongs". The other guy (Tim Dunning) is more defensive in his ads and explains why he should be re-elected. Tim Dunning has my vote. He's pro-CCW and he was at a recent NRA Grassroots meeting here in Omaha. He seems like a straight shooter to me!!!

 

[bruels]

As Zero Mostel said, "Tradition."

Actually, the job of sheriff involves much more than just law enforcement. In my county the sheriff is also the coroner and the public administrator. Our sheriff is also the official responsible for courtroom security and he is also responsible for enforcing court judgments and orders. Since his jurisdiction is greater than the four cities within the county, no one mayor has the juice to "appoint" him.

The office of sheriff is one of many traditions we inherited from England and the English Common Law. The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of the county and it has been traditional that he be popularly elected.

Be glad that our sheriffs are popularly elected. Absent that, we could very well end up with a centralized government police force beholden only to the state or federal capitals.

 

[Yakko77]

Ahh, of course!!!

That makes sence. Since Sheriff's are responsible for whole COUNTIES, then yes, elections are definately the way to go with that position. I hadn't considered that. Thank you for the quick response.

 

[Jim March]

In a few cases, the city and county are functionally the same thing. San Francisco is like that: the city and county lines are the same, with the same gov't.

I'm of the opinion that there's too much power in that one office. There is more corruption among sheriffs nationwide than in any other single type of local office...only mayors come close.

In California, they get to decide who carries a gun. They also decide who builds anything(!), they sign off on the traffic analysis and crime impact portions of Environmental Impact Reports. Which is why so many land developers seem to be buddies with 'em.

Too much power in one set of hands, with inadequate oversight. Mayors, city councils and boards of supervisors can't do much without holding a public meeting, which in California means the Brown Act forcing such meetings to be open record kicks in. Most states have similar. The internal actions of a sheriff's department aren't open to examination on anywhere like that level of detail.

We have a case brewing in California (San Joaquin County) where a buddy of the sheriff was being investigated for corruption, extortion and witness tampering. The crony went running to his pal the sheriff who investigated the FBI agents investigating the crony .

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I like the ability to elect the Sheriff. In the event we get one that, for instance will not sign the ATF Form 4's, both him and the voters know that at the next election, he could be history. Even Sheriffs with a political agenda can be somewhat controlled by this knowledge.

It also ensures that the politicians that would choose that Sheriff could not bring in a person from some other county or state to take the job. There is a good reason why this is important. It causes the chief to owe his job to these officials and he can feel he now has a debt to them.

A nearby city hired their last police chief from some city in Texas. This chief "retired" following an incident where one of his officers stopped the city manager and found him to be driving under the influence of alcohol. Given the identity of the drunk, the officer called the chief, who promptly drove to the scene, took control of the situation and ordered the officer to go back on patrol. The chief then drove the city manager home without determining his level of intoxication. Of course, when word leaked out, the chief stated the drunk was not really intoxicated and the officer was in error when he said he was. He also said he would do the same thing for any citizen, not just the city manager.

In the event a total moron is elected Sheriff, which did happen to my county back in the 80's, the Govenor (at least in Florida) can remove the person from office and appoint a temporary Sheriff until an election can be held.

 

[seeker_two]

Personally, I LIKE the fact that a sheriff is elected. This makes him/her directly accountable to the PEOPLE of the community instead of another cog in a bureaucracy. If the PEOPLE don't like the way a sheriff does his/her job, they boot him out. Try doing THAT to a Chief of Police in any city.

FWIW, review all the stories of LEO violating someone's rights, using excessive force, or otherwise acting against law & Constitution to "write their own laws." I'll bet you'll find that @ 80% of those will be in POLICE DEPARTMENTS w/ UNELECTED CHIEFS.

I like sheriffs...

 

[rdavis@vanion.com]

In many places the office of Sheriff is specified in the State Constitution, along with its responsibilities, making it very different from a municipal post. Here in Colorado the Sheriff's responsibilites include operating a jail for the whole county and serving Civil Process. Also, in more than a few places Sheriff's Office employees don't have civil service protection like municipal employees. We serve "at the pleasure of the Sheriff".

• Running the risk of being purged by a new administration every 4 years - Much Worry
  
• Working for an elected official in the gladhand season - Much Patience
  
• Serving Civil Process (which never, never, is) - Much Grief
  
• Working for a boss who can tell the Comissioners where to get off - Priceless!

 

[Sodbuster]

I am one who also believes in the election of a sheriff versus an appointed one. Many jurisdictions are consolidating because of financial concerns. That must be weighed against the loss of autonomy. Sometimes state/federal law mandates the guidelines for consolidation. Montgomery County, Maryland, is such a consolidation. Chief Moose is the police chief, not the sheriff. He was hired by the commissioners, not elected by popular vote. Many places large and small are consolidated; I think something is lost.

 

[tc556guy]

Sheriff's should remain elected positions. Look at the politics involved with the selection of a police chief. Most of the vocal anti CLEO's you hear about are chiefs of police. Ever wonder why? They have to cowtow to anti gun administrators in the City government.