Inaugural Newsletter: Sheriffs v. Police
Sheriff v. Police: The Rematch
In Loudon County, Virginia, Sheriff Mike Chapman recently released a 99-page report titled “Sheriff’s Office v. Police Department.” (Guess who won?) The entire political saga is well-covered by Tom Jackman’s Washington Post article, which I highly recommend, but most important to me was the larger question this raises – should law enforcement represent the will of the majority and is that consistent with the values of liberal democracy?
A few specifics for context: Sheriff Chapman is one of a number of sheriffs who have aligned themselves with Donald Trump. He’s appeared in photo ops and is a member of Trump’s Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice where he co-chairs a group on homeland security. Chapman has also taken campaign contributions from Wellpath LLC, a correctional health care services provider. (There’s a lot to say on the financial links between sheriffs and jail healthcare. I suggest these two stories to start.)
Since the Loudon County Board of Supervisors flipped Democrat last November, part of their move would appear to be anti-Trump, causing Sheriff Chapman to call the suggested change a “reckless power grab.” The County Board, in its defense, argues that sheriffs have too much power and too little accountability. One said, “We have absolutely no recourse if something goes wrong in the sheriff’s office…no matter what the sheriff’s office does, he can do it with complete impunity in Loudoun County.” (Perhaps he read a series I wrote for The Political Appeal?)
Police chiefs are appointed and can be fired or replaced at will by local officials. Sheriffs are elected. Sheriff Chapman’s report argues inexplicably that sheriffs are more qualified that police, even though sheriffs have few, if any, job requirements – in Virginia, they need only a high school diploma and county residence. Another sticking point is the hiring and firing of deputies, who serve only at the pleasure of the sheriff. Police officers have union contracts and can’t be summarily fired. (For background, Sheriff Chapman previously fired a detective who backed his opponent in the election. More on deputies in a later edition.)
In my view, this presents the essential paradox of sheriffs and law enforcement as a part of the government. Should law enforcement represent the will of the majority? Or is their primary role to protect the (constitutionally-protected) rights of the disenfranchised and vulnerable? And how does that impact the way we view sheriff elections?
I’ve often argued that the election of sheriffs is no guarantee there will be accountability, and, in fact, the voting majority has elected sheriffs that unquestionably did not protect the disenfranchised. There are many reasons for this, including felon disenfranchisement, low turnout for local elections, and voter suppression through technicalities and terror. Both Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Sheriff David Clarke were re-elected multiple times even though (or because?) they were well known for oppressive and cruel tactics. On the other hand, those who strive to elect more progressive-minded sheriffs have succeeded in some places. Both Arpaio and Clarke were ousted, eventually.
At the same time, there’s a good argument that policing is about protecting people from the tyranny of the majority. Brandon del Pozo frames this as law enforcement’s role to protect pluralism. This might seem to some people to be a bit naive in light of current events. Many of the current protests against police brutality are about the very opposite – that police do not protect all segments of society and, in fact, make many communities worse.
The idea of law enforcement as protector of liberal democracy is a troubled notion in the world of sheriffs. For the history of America, sheriffs have long been important tools of white supremacy. White Southerners used their ability to win elections – by force or by ballot-box stuffing – to ensure that sheriffs would enforce white power. On the other hand, during Reconstruction, Southern counties did elect Black sheriffs and other leaders as part of a short-lived moment where Black voters were able to exercise their new power as citizens. (The first post-Reconstruction Black sheriff in the South wasn’t elected until the 1960s, after the Voting Rights Act.)
As local municipalities look to defund the police (and, in some places, the sheriff as well), it’s of increasing importance to examine what incentivizes sheriffs over other centralized law enforcement entities. In the meantime, the sheriff versus police dynamic will continue.
Other Reading
Below are some thoughts and other reading of interest.
1) Hannah Critchfield wrote a good summary of ICE’s new Warrant Service Officer program (“287g light”) and its impact in North Carolina. Most interesting (to me): many of the sheriffs who signed up are in more rural counties, which could be a sign of politics or the business of housing immigrants in local jails
2) I think the end of eviction moratoriums is going to be disastrous. Maybe sheriffs can help?