Baffling ballot question about electing sheriffs attacks local control | Commentary

November ballot Question 2, a proposed constitutional amendment about the election and removal of sheriffs, is bad for local democracy and should be soundly rejected by voters.

The amendment would tie the hands of voters to reform local government services according to their needs. Passage of the measure will also revoke the power held by county prosecutors to initiate removal of sheriffs from office for misconduct.

The amendment’s assault on democracy is obscured by verbose and misleading ballot language. As with the August election question on abortion, this amendment’s authors rejected plain English in the service of deceiving voters.

An initial reading of the amendment’s garbled text suggests its passage would allow voters to elect their sheriff. But voters in nearly all counties already elect the sheriff and have done so since the beginning of statehood.

While working at the Kansas Association of Counties, I learned how little most Kansans know about county government; they assume counties are identical to city governments. But there are important differences between the two. A bit of background about how counties differ is helpful to make sense of this amendment.

The election of four administrative officers – clerk, treasurer, register of deeds, and sheriff – is a holdover from the 19th century formation of Kansas county governments.

Presently, in almost all Kansas counties, the sheriff is responsible for maintaining law and order, enforcing state laws, and managing the county jail. The sheriff shares law enforcement duties with a county (or district) attorney and police chiefs in the county’s cities. All police chiefs are appointed by an elected city council or city commission.

In the early 20th century, voters in many cities approved Progressive Era reforms including appointment of professional managers, merit selection of employees, and “shorter ballots.” For much of Kansas history, however, such reforms were passed over by county voters. But in more recent years, voters in several counties, including Johnson, Wyandotte, Riley, and Greeley, have approved similar reforms including elimination of elected administrative offices and merger of specific city and county services.

The notion that local citizens are in the preferred position to decide how local governments can best serve their community is a bedrock principle in Kansas law. The amendment violates this tradition by restricting county voters’ options for reorganizing their local governments.

Elevating sheriffs to constitutional status is unprecedented and undemocratic. Our Constitution is silent when it comes to local offices.

Instead, it delegates to the Legislature responsibility to authorize city and county officers. Presently, state law requires elected sheriffs, but also enables a process for voters to eliminate the position — as voters in Riley County did when they consolidated city and county law enforcement departments.

The Constitution only mandates state-wide elected officers, such as the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. Constitutional designation for a sheriff would make it unique among local officials with no explicit rationale except a self-serving one for sheriffs to perpetuate the office. Indeed, constitutional status for sheriffs would render it impossible to ever change the position.

The amendment will invalidate local control by prohibiting local prosecutors from launching removal from office proceedings. Presently, a local county or district attorney can initiate a court process – called an ouster – to remove a sheriff for misconduct.

Removal from office for cause has been successfully performed numerous times in state history. The proposed amendment deletes this local authority so that only the state attorney general can initiate ouster proceedings.

When voting in November, a “No” vote on this amendment will maximize the autonomy of local citizens to reform their local governments and remove sheriffs from office for misconduct.

Marla Flentje is retired after working with county and city governments in the Midwest for more than 30 years and is a member of the state leadership team for Women for Kansas.