Vote for Sheriff
What makes a difference in a sheriff election?
This week, Sheriff Dar Leaf, who has been in office since 2004, expressed sympathy for the 13 men arrested for an alleged far-right-wing plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. He questioned whether their plot could accurately be described as a kidnapping or a “citizen’s arrest” under Michigan law. Now, many, including the Michigan Attorney General, are calling for his resignation. (Leaf later expanded on his comments to say that he meant to argue against a trial in the press.)
I tweeted at the time about Sheriff Leaf and the legal challenges inherent when communities seek to remove an elected sheriff for misconduct, whether than be a criminal indictment or views that are plainly racist, sexist, or hateful.
Sheriffs pride themselves on being the sole elected law enforcement officers in America, and, of late, this has been a selling point. In the mind of sheriffs and the National Sheriff Association (NSA), sheriffs have a unique position, both as popularly elected models of democracy and presumed experts in the process of arrest and incarceration. The NSA explains on its website:
The Office of Sheriff is not a department of county government, it is the independent office through which the Sheriff exercises the powers of the public trust. No individual or small group hires or fires the Sheriff, or has the authority to interfere with the operations of the office. Elected sheriffs are accountable directly to the constitution of their state, the United States Constitution, statutes, and the citizens of their county… The preservation of the Office of Sheriff is vital in our republic.
It is in fact a principal of the NSA to resist all efforts to diminish sheriff powers through dissolution of the office or defunding.
It’s an interesting argument given the current policing environment. For example, several relatively progressive-minded police chiefs have resigned because of scandals involving excessive violence against protestors, mismanagement, and other scandals. Yet, sheriffs like Dar Leaf, Joe Arpaio and David Clarke remain(ed) in office and, in fact, were popularly elected not once but over and over.
Professor Lindsey Meeks at the University of Oklahoma recently published an interesting paper about the lack of media coverage for sheriff elections, particularly in less populous counties and in years when there are midterm or presidential elections. Other reports have noted that over half of all sheriff elections are unopposed and that the incumbent advantage is incredibly strong. But more importantly, to me, is that Meeks emphasizes that local news sheriff media coverage frequently falls into two categories: scandals and toughness. There was very little on issues like immigration and race. (Note that Meeks is examining local news, which is how most voters get their information, not national news.)
There’s a dearth of research on this topic overall. A 1985 study in Florida found that the most accurate predictor of a sheriff election, outside of party affiliation, was the crime rate, especially the rate of “rapes and murders.” The researchers point out that because the qualifications of a sheriff candidate are nonexistent – pretty much anyone can run – the key point is whether a sheriff can get elected into office, however that happens. (I think back to how the current Pinal County sheriff sued to ensure his election was unopposed.)
The focus on crime rates troubles to come extent the idea that sheriffs are less “law enforcement” and more “county governance.” For example, one study claims this: “Although the county legislature has very little formal control over the day-to-day operations of the sheriff ’s office, a reciprocal respect is shared between the sheriff and county legislators in the policy sphere. This respect is enhanced by the board members’ and sheriff ’s shared desire to be re-elected.” Reciprocal respect? Color me dubious.
So how to move forward? There is no research about the difference between elected sheriffs and appointed sheriffs, law enforcement leaders, and jailers. We also don’t know if sheriffs alter their behavior in election years, as some studies suggest prosecutors do by bringing more cases to trial and asking for tougher penalties. Sheriffs themselves, and the NSA, argue that elected sheriffs bring “checks and balances.” This strikes me as disingenuous. An elected sheriff has no check or balance; they are able to enact, or fail to enact, whatever policies they want. They are accountable to the “voting public,” but I question both who constitute the voting public and whether that is sufficient.
First, sheriff elections are low-information because of a lack of media coverage and a lack of understanding of how the position operates. Meeks’s study supports my theory, which is that people vote for sheriff largely based on a popular notion of “what police do” – which is arrest people. There’s not a lot of understanding about how to maintain jails, the economics of city works projects, or the prevalence of discrimination and bias. People do not often ask what sheriff’s views are on broad issues, probably because they do not know what to ask. Additionally, sheriffs and law enforcement easily turn out more voters; those in jail, especially in rural jails, are generally unable to physically vote (because of the sheriff!).
Second, even if voters had better information, I question whether the popular vote is the best way to choose someone whose very job has historically been – and, in large part, continues to be – supporting a system of white supremacy. Sheriffs like Dar Leaf are “popular” in the sense that people keep voting for them. Notoriety provides free publicity, and a subset seems to admire sheriffs who toe the line of the law.
I hate to end commentary with the call for more research, but it’s necessary. More than that, however, I think the position of sheriff – the whitest, most masculine American politician there is – requires a large degree of creative thinking and not the same input from the same people who have made the job what it is. Maybe it’s not a surprise that many of the best researchers in sheriff politics and local governance are women.
Other Reading
Jerry Sheridan, running for sheriff this year in Maricopa, will restore some of Arpaio’s ideas.
San Francisco voters have the chance to choose a mechanism for greater sheriff and jail oversight.
More on the “anti-police Satanist” running for sheriff.
Candidate for Oklahoma sheriff says “the old way is flawed.” He’s running as a Republican and takes some reform positions, but also wants to spend more.