PD Editorial: Should sheriffs be appointed, not elected?

California’s sheriffs have immense authority and minimal oversight.

Sheriffs manage jails, provide court security and police unincorporated areas as well as some cities. In some counties, including Sonoma, sheriffs double as coroners.

Unlike municipal police departments, and even the U.S. military, there is little if any civilian oversight, aside from elections every four years — and, in California anyway, elections for sheriff routinely go uncontested.

Sheriffs aren’t shy about using, and sometimes abusing, their power.

In recent years, some California sheriffs have asserted broad authority to determine the validity of state and federal laws, including environmental laws, gun laws and immigration laws. Over this past year, sheriffs up and down the state publicly refused to enforce lawful orders issued by the governor and county health officers to control the spread of the coronavirus.

Here in Sonoma County, as Staff Writer Kevin Fixler reported recently, the Sheriff’s Office hasn’t issued a citation for a health order violation since July.

There are numerous other examples of misfeasance and malfeasance, including a Los Angeles County sheriff convicted of obstructing a federal investigation of his scandal-plagued jail system and another who rehired deputies fired for misconduct; a Lake County sheriff who landed on the Brady List of untruthful witnesses; and a Trinity County sheriff who took leave and moved out of state, collecting salary until his absence was noted by the Sacramento Bee.

Sheriffs jealously guard their independence, but the days of frontier justice are over, and there is a growing push for meaningful public oversight.

Sonoma County’s Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach, which was created by the Board of Supervisors in 2015 and given additional powers by local voters last year, is an example of the reform movement.

So is a recently introduced bill in the state Senate that would vastly expand the pool of potential candidates for sheriff.

The post was open to any eligible voter until a 1988 state law created prerequisites: at least one year of full-time, paid law enforcement experience and a master’s degree; the law doesn’t specify academic field. With each year of experience, the educational requirement is reduced, first to a bachelor’s degree, then an associate degree and, after four years, a high school diploma.

Repealing those requirements is “about whether we trust the voters to decide who should be the sheriff,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, the bill’s sponsor.

We’d like to see Wiener, or some other legislator, offer voters a different choice.

It makes sense for a sheriff to have a background in law enforcement, just as district attorneys are required to be lawyers. What may no longer make sense is electing sheriffs.

An appointed sheriff would be vetted by professionals instead of raising money from employee unions and others with a vested interest in the outcome of an election while making promises such as relaxing standards for issuing concealed weapons permits.

Moreover, an appointed sheriff couldn’t refuse to cooperate with inspectors general and other civilian oversight systems, as some elected sheriffs have done.

Because the state constitution identifies sheriff as an elected office, voters would have to approve the change.

California lawmakers pass a lot of bills, but they don’t spend much time on bigger questions about the scope of government. Here is a prime opportunity to explore the responsibilities and qualifications of a 21st century sheriff. If they conclude, as we suspect they will, electing sheriffs is indeed a vestige of a bygone era, give voters a chance to make that change.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.