April 23, 2020
In Snohomish County, Washington, Sheriff Adam Fortney is refusing to enforce the governor's stay-at-home order. He claims the order "intrudes on our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." On April 22, he told constituents via a Facebook post that "along with other elected Sheriffs around our state, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office will not be enforcing an order preventing religious freedoms or constitutional rights."
 |
| In this Jan. 28, 2020 photo, Snohomish County Sheriff Adam Fortney holds a press conference in Everett, Wash., explaining why he reinstated two deputies who were fired for violating policy. Fortney, the sheriff of Washington state’s third largest county, says he won’t enforce Gov. Jay Inslee’s stay-at-home order to slow the spread of the coronavirus, saying it violates people’s constitutional rights. (Andy Bronson/The Herald via AP) |
These Washington sheriffs are far from alone. They're part of a nationwide group of sheriffs who feel beholden to no one but their voters. As they have on issues such as immigration and gun regulations, they will lead rebellions against higher levels of government - in this case, undermining public health efforts in the name of their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Here's how.
- Sheriffs are unlike other elected officials
Unlike police chiefs or commissioners who are generally appointed, sheriffs are law enforcement officials elected by residents of their counties. While research finds that police generally try to carry out their responsibilities in a nonpartisan manner, sheriffs are influenced by the desire to be reelected. Sheriffs run for office in the same way that members of Congress or the president do: they run on campaign platforms they believe will win a majority of votes. Sheriffs' campaign platforms consist of their political and law enforcement records, personal philosophies and policy priorities.
What sheriffs promise to do is quite likely to come true, because they have much more autonomy than do other elected officials. Legislators can't do much without first going through lengthy and involved policymaking efforts that involve collaborating with their fellow legislators. Governors and presidents have to work with the legislative branch of government. Because sheriffs don't have these constraints, their personal attitudes are quite likely to affect how they carry out their jobs.
For example, research finds that sheriffs choose whether and how they cooperate with federal immigration authorities. On one end of the spectrum is a group of sheriffs in North Carolina who campaigned on the promise to cut ties between their offices and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Since their elections, they have refused to honor immigration detainers, which are official ICE requests to take custody of someone who has been arrested; these sheriffs no longer allow ICE into county jails. On the other end of the spectrum was Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., well known for relentlessly policing immigration status, at the expense of civil rights and neglecting other aspects of his job.
Now combine that popular mandate from being directly elected with law enforcement power. What you get are sheriffs willing and able to lead local rebellions against the government - something that for decades has been happening from a group known as "constitutionalist sheriffs."
