Op-Ed: Do Not Weaken the Office of Sheriff

The following Op-Ed was submitted by Doug Traubel. Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch.

There is an effort to weaken the Office of Sheriff.  The reasons are too complicated to explain here.  You can glean the answers from some of my previous Op-eds or my book, Red Badge, A Veteran Peace Officer’s Commentary on the Marxist Subversion of American Law Enforcement & Culture.

In 2000 Connecticut abolished the Office of Sheriff!

As of 2022 the “Sheriff” of King County, Washington is no longer elected.  The position is now appointed. As such, it should no longer be called “Sheriff.” It should be called the “county police chief.” The change from elected to appointed transformed the “Office” to a subordinate “Department” of county government like the Parks Department or Sewer Department. The King County Sheriff wears the title in name only.  Without a mandate of the people, she has no autonomy to unilaterally step into Seattle to defend the people from crime or interpose on behalf of the citizen from government overreach. This is a dangerous precedent for freedom.

 Sheriff Patricia Cole-Tindall was appointed in May 2022 by Executive Dow Constantine and confirmed by the County Council as the 35th Sheriff of King County.

In Idaho a move that will weaken the Office of Sheriff comes from where one would least expect, The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association. The ISA took its first swing in 2019 at lobbying to change the requirements set by Idaho Code to be a candidate for Sheriff. Holding a current Idaho P.O.S.T. (Police Officer Standards and Training) certification is one of the suggested hurdles.

The argument in favor of this change is to ensure relevant and current training to serve as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the county (CLEO). While it is intended to be a move to improve the Office of Sheriff by introducing or elevating “professional” requirements that mirror those of a chief of police applicant, it does the opposite.

This proposal weakens the Office of Sheriff by narrowing the pool of candidates. The Sheriff is supposed to be of the people, not of the establishment. One could argue the proposed change(s) filters out brilliant leaders as much or more as it does clown candidates by codifying a litmus test. Government should not get between the people and their (elected) Sheriff.  

The ISA is correct that under current law it is harder to become a deputy sheriff than it is to qualify to be a candidate for Sheriff.

To most people standards and certifications sound reasonable when they think of CEOs, CFOs, pilots, doctors, crane operators etc., but “Sheriff” is an ancient and unique position. While counterintuitive − it is best for “We the People” − to leave the qualifications as they are. Hear me out.

Sheriffs and chiefs are not the same jobs. The Sheriff is the only elected law enforcement officer in the country. His jurisdiction is county-wide.  He is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and “We the People” are his boss.  He does not answer to a person or a board.  He answers to The People.

Who is permitted to step up to run ought not to be limited by the very government a Sheriff is sworn to protect the people from. A call by the ISA to “raise the requirements” will reduce the number and variety of minds and backgrounds running for the Office of Sheriff.

I am not impugning the motive of the ISA. I am calling the proposal out as short-sighted. It may appeal to the average legislator as reasonable and not questioned too deeply because of the inherent credibility of the ISA. It will appeal to the criminals in government for a different reason. The corrupt want to insulate themselves from accountability by reducing the number of free thinkers and oath keepers (white blood cells in the body politic) from being Sheriff. Narrowing the field of candidates does that.

If the ISA gets its way nearly all candidates will fit a mold rubberstamped by a government that does not want its overreach to be challenged.  Never forget what government did to you during COVID.

Too often government behaves like organized crime protecting itself from us. We need Sheriffs that are from and for the people, not from and for the establishment. Baked into the Oath of Office is a duty for Sheriffs to “stand in the way” and protect our rights.  This is the crux of the matter! Therefore, the character of a Sheriff is more important than a requirement for a current P.O.S.T. certification. A Sheriff has seasoned professionals with “current certifications” working under him to carry out his vision and offer advice.  

“We the People” ought to retain all discretion and vetting in a truly open field of candidates as prescribed in current law and let the organic process shake out in the ballot box to determine who “We the People” want as our Sheriff in each of Idaho’s forty-four counties. 

While it is reasonable for the legislature to lend an ear to the ISA on law enforcement matters it is never wise to blindly follow the experts.  Legislators take the oath. Honoring the oath often means defending the status quo from changes built on good intentions. I am asking the legislature to look beyond the ISA and think deeper about original intent and how well the existing law reflects the purpose of government (to defend God-given rights).  

Steve Jobs and many other capable and intelligent people have made their mark without university degrees, and completely outside of establishment industries uncredentialed. It is because of these movers and shakers that standards rise, and new paths are cut that revolutionize entire industries to embrace new “best practices.” Teddy Roosevelt reformed the New York Police Department as Police Commissioner but had never been a police officer. Measured by the ISA’s proposed litmus test he was not “qualified.”

I have a higher level of P.O.S.T. certification (Master Level) than my opponent and twelve more years of experience. I also have more relevant formal and informal education for the job than his biology degree and have published extensively demonstrating my command of pertinent knowledge and rival operating philosophy.

Certifications “expire” without documenting continuing education credits to respective boards or councils.  My P.O.S.T. certification expired March of 2024.  When your driver license expires do you instantly forget the rules of the road? Do the miles and storms you drove through have no value? Do people with formal education pursue knowledge informally for years after earning their degree?

I have no intention of running for Sheriff again. My position in opposing the ISA on this matter is not self-serving to keep the door open. It is the right thing to do to preserve the very grass roots nature of the Office of Sheriff for our posterity.

Legislators, beware. Yes, establishing a boiler plate requirement for candidacy will eliminate low-end candidates.  It will also eliminate high-end candidates. It will deliver a pool of mediocre candidates (yes men) who are “qualified” on paper.   

Leave who can become the Sheriff up to We the People − where it belongs! Voters will get to the bottom of who they want to serve them as their last line of defense.  Do not take away from the people their power to raise up a candidate from their neighbors fit for the challenges of the day who can speak truth to power and trailblaze.  

Bad things can come from good intentions. The ISA should use the Constitution to recalibrate its algorithm and abandon this proposal. The litmus test works against self-government. What would be a better service is to lobby for a law requiring public debate of Sheriff candidates. Don’t shut candidates out. Bring the light on them all! Make the vetting process public through requiring debate(s). This is in line with a government of, for and by The People.   

TITLE 34

34-618.  Election of county sheriffs — Qualifications. (1) At the general election, 1972, and every four (4) years thereafter, a sheriff shall be elected in every county.

(2)  No person shall be elected to the office of sheriff unless he has attained the age of twenty-one (21) years at the time of election, is a citizen of the United States and shall have resided within the county one (1) year next preceding his election.

(3)  Each candidate shall file his declaration of candidacy with the county clerk.

(4)  Each candidate who files a declaration of candidacy shall at the same time pay a filing fee of forty dollars ($40.00) which shall be deposited in the county treasury.

(5)  Each person who has been elected to the office of sheriff for the first time shall complete a tutorial concerning current Idaho law and rules as prescribed by the Idaho peace officers standards and training academy, unless the person is already certified as a chief of police, peace officer or detention deputy in the state of Idaho, and shall attend the newly elected sheriffs’ school sponsored by the Idaho sheriffs’ association.

---

Tags: Ada County, Doug Traubel, Sheriff

---