© 2024 KRWG
News that Matters.
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Sheriffs, judges should not be part of the political process

  Commentary: The Associated Press in Kansas organized a statewide test several years ago to see if government agencies were complying with open records laws.

 

They requested public documents from the clerk, sheriff’s office and largest school district in every county in the state, then did a big story about who was not in compliance. Most of those public officials offered an excuse and promises to do better in the future. But a few sheriffs refused to turn over the documents (arrest reports) even after statewide reporting, accompanied by finger-wagging editorials.

 

 

The sheriffs didn’t deny that the reports were public records, but explained that they had a department policy against releasing them. Anybody who didn’t like it could take them court.

Nobody did, meaning department policy set by the sheriff trumped state law passed by the Legislature.

 

That’s when I got my first lesson in the power of the county sheriff, especially in rural areas. New Mexicans are getting that same lesson this year with the long-awaited passage of gun safety legislation.

 

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association is comprised of law enforcement officers, but it is not a law enforcement group. It is a political group that, according to its website, supports a crackdown on immigration; opposes federal land management and asset forfeiture programs; and is against any limits on gun ownership or sales.

 

There’s nothing wrong with that. I agree with them on asset forfeiture. But, the problem comes when politics and law enforcement merge.

 

The group argues that because of corruption and bureaucracies at the state and federal levels, sheriffs are the “last hope” for achieving the above-stated political goals.

 

They seek to place the power of one elected official (them) above that of all other elected officials. The deliberative process upon which our entire democratic system of government is based would become moot. The state Legislature, U.S. Congress and Supreme Court would all be subservient to the county sheriff.

 

In New Mexico, sheriffs with allegiance to this organization say they will refuse to enforce legislation passed this session to tighten background checks for gun purchases. Taking on the role of constitutional scholars, they argue that enforcement of any law that violates their interpretation of the Constitution would be a violation of their oath of office.

 

And so, they have announced that they will simply not enforce the new law.

 

More provocatively, they have also brought the immigration issue into the debate by declaring their counties to be “Second Amendment sanctuaries.”

 

The unspoken argument is clear. If sheriffs on the left can decide not to enforce immigration laws, why can’t sheriffs on the right decide not to enforce new gun laws?

 

Yes, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and I understand the need to ensure that local law enforcement maintains the trust of all its residents. But in both cases you have law enforcement decisions being influenced by politics.

 

Which is why sheriffs shouldn’t be elected (or judges, for that matter.) Those are not jobs for politicians.

 

The political process should come at the front end, when senators and representatives are elected and laws are debated in open session. Once those laws are on the books, the political process should no longer be involved in either their interpretation or enforcement.

 

As for what will happen with the new background check law and other gun laws under consideration this session, my experience in Kansas taught me there are only two options when a sheriff refuses to enforce or follow the law: wait until the next election and hope somebody else wins, or take them to court.

 

Walter Rubel can be reached at waltrubel@gmail.com