Amendment C asks if the Utah constitution should be amended to allow the direct election of county sheriffs for four-year terms. Utah has elected county sheriffs since before our statehood, so this appears, at first glance, to be nothing more than a cosmetic change to our state’s most important document, our constitution. When this commanding document is changed or altered, citizens should insist we have a compelling reason to do so.
This change may appear harmless to the casual reader. A more detailed explanation of possible harm is written in this excellent blog post from community member Drew Howells. I encourage you to read it.
During the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers ripped away the previous responsibility of impartial legislative counsel to write Amendment language and provide analysis to voters, including any fiscal impact. SB 37 changed this to give the power of writing Amendments primarily to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House, directly removing the requirement that ballot language be impartial. This ultimately led to the courts voiding Amendments A and D from being counted. Amendments B and C were not challenged.
An excellent short piece explaining this legislative change can be found from the reporting by independent journalist Bryan Schott in his piece “Information War: How lawmakers changed the rules on what voters are told about constitutional changes.”
Utah statute already sets standards for sheriffs before they can file for office. These standards seem reasonable and satisfactory, but would the standards change if the county sheriff is under the protection of being constitutionally elected? This is unclear from the Amendment language and presents several potential challenges to Utah residents. Many states have elections of sheriffs enshrined in their Constitution, but their constitutional language includes guardrails or standards which can most often be altered by statutes to meet evolving community needs. Utah’s constitutional change, as proposed in Amendment C, does not do this. It offers no protective guardrails and nothing by way of defining the necessary qualifications, potential for removal from the office and replacement procedures.
This article explains what can happen if guardrails are not specifically outlined in a state where election of the sheriff is enshrined in their constitution. It cannot be overstated the importance of this single sentence from States United Democracy Center’s article. “Where a state constitution does not provide the legislature with the authority to define or change the powers of county sheriffs, the legislature (or any other state or local official) may not be able to diminish the powers traditionally recognized at common law or by the state constitution, or transfer them to others, without amending the state constitution.” 27
Amendment C, as written on the ballot, does not provide the legislature with authority to define or change the powers or responsibilities of the county sheriff, typically the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in a county due to their elected position. Utah’s county sheriffs are fine public servants. We believe they should be elected by county residents, but they too become tied up when all they have to rely on is common law for their standards. They may have difficulty making necessary enforcement changes due to changing community needs. While it may seem that change is needed, simply adopting Amendment C, is not the answer. Adding ambiguity is not a compelling reason to change the State Constitution, further compounded by the lack of necessary and protective guardrails in the amendment language.
A troubling aspect of this proposed change is the full-throated support of political activists such as Gayle Ruzicka, head of the Eagle Forum, and Richard Mack, founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), as reported by Deseret News. Mack is a retired Arizona sheriff and former board member of the Oath Keepers as reported by NBC News Dallas/Fort Worth. The people of Utah do not need or want this extremism even suggested in our local law enforcement.
Mack’s group (the CSPOA) is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as having “always been associated with other extremist movements, including conspiracy propagandists, sovereign citizens and white nationalists” and the Anti-Defamation League explains how these radicalized groups are infiltrating law enforcement.
Gayle Ruzicka says sheriffs should be elected (they already are in Utah), but she doesn’t go into detail about why we need to change the Constitution to ensure this. Appointing sheriffs, the alternative to electing them, only happens in two states, Rhode Island and Hawaii, along with a small number of counties. Utah does not and has never allowed this. We believe in the election of sheriffs as evidenced by the long history of doing so, dating back to before Utah had statehood. We have no reason to believe the appointment of sheriffs, much like the appointment of police chiefs, is a consideration anywhere in Utah.
Mack points out that putting the election of sheriffs in the Utah Constitution “creates a barrier between bureaucrats and other politicians controlling the sheriff.” This observation from Mack is consistent with analysis cited earlier from States United Democracy Center. Richard Mack is a common name, along with Gayle Ruzicka, as influencers in right wing Utah politics. So-called “Sheriff Mack,” who ran for Utah County Sheriff in the late nineties, is founder of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. I advise you, the reader, to learn more about this organization. Sheriff Mack believes in the unbridled power of county sheriffs outside the norms and boundaries of statute and traditions of common law. If added to the Utah Constitution as proposed, without the necessary and protective guardrails, “creating a barrier between bureaucrats and other politicians controlling the sheriff” won’t matter and may make future changes of any kind more difficult since the process would then be enshrined in the State Constitution.
Based on the considerations that Amendment C lacks any compelling reason to change our Constitution, the fact it appears to be a partisan “gimme” to right wing influencers, that it lacks the consideration of legislative attorneys to protect our communities from unnecessary constitutional harm, I oppose Amendment C which would unnecessarily enshrine voting for sheriff into our constitution.
We encourage all voters to vote NO on Amendment C—the Poison Pill.
-Frank Brannan
Comments