Sheriff Candidates

[dorankj]

Yes!, do that.

[PAL]

Oh, you criminal you.
As far as voting for the candidates. Consider a protest vote, doing a write in, something like "none of the above."

[just-jim]

A few days ago I drove on Hwy 20, and passed Paul Budrow in his Police car. He waved at me and I waved back.

I was doing maybe 28 mph in a 25 MPH zone.

Therefore, he COMPLETELY abrogated his Constitutional Responsibility!!!!!!
He should have run me down, drawn his weapon, thrown me to the ground, cuffed me, and taken me to jail, right?
(Or, maybe acted as both Executive and Judge - and just shot me in the back?)

…..some people don’t understand the difference between officer discretion, nuance, policy, laws and the Constitution.
Nor, apparently, the ‘Separation of Powers’.

But….In tRump world, everything is black and white. Sadly, and to our detriment.

Jim Archambeault

[Gonzo'57]

It's really not about Biden. It's about people that cry when a person whose political leanings they don't care for says or does something and then ignores the same behavior from a person whose political leanings they do agree with. Simple.

[PAL]

So, because you have nothing else to go on, why do you always turn it to Biden this, Biden that? He inherited a bunch of problems.
This is supposed to about our Local sheriffs.
No the oath doesn't say, "unless I disagree". They say, unless they disagree.
I guess I better read the Voter's pamphet more closely, as I missed that it is close to what he said at the forum.

[Gonzo'57]

“I note that all of the Sheriff Candidates "prefer the Republican party" and all of them have claimed the authority to selectively not enforce state law.”

You mean like the current administration decides which articles of the Constitution to abide by or not?

“I like your idea David. I wrote Bob Ferguson about the legality of them taking an oath and then not following through on it. Bascially, lying, to get the job. Hmm, sounds familiar.”

Yes, it does sound familiar. Seems to me President Biden took an oath also. Do you think he is upholding his oath or did he basically lie as well?

“Maybe we should ask each candidate to go through the entire RCW and highlight laws they will not enforce?”

Maybe we should have asked candidate Biden to highlight which articles of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights he would or would not enforce.

“The oath of office for law enforcement officers is unequivocal: They take a vow to uphold the laws of the state and the United States. Nowhere in the oath does it say, “unless I disagree.”

President Biden is not enforcing the laws of the United States. Immigration law is well established but ignored by the current administration.

May I ask, how many posters on this thread voted for President Biden but would not vote for any of the current Sheriff candidates based on their statements regarding selectively enforcing state law?

[Rideback]

The statement in the voter's pamphlet does give a strong hint to what he said in the forum. His reference to the Constitution and 'I will always protect your rights' are phrased a bit hinky.

[PAL]

I started this post and couldn't find it, so thought it had been removed.
Just got the Voter's pamphlet today and read Budrows statement. It is quite different than what he said at the Forum. Which to believe?
I'll ask him.

[mister_coffee]

Just to get back to this.

I note that all of the Sheriff Candidates "prefer the Republican party" and all of them have claimed the authority to selectively not enforce state law.

How do I know that any of them won't do something else crazy? What reasons do I have to believe that if Donald Trump told them to kill all green-eyed people or a Q drop told them that all people whose names start with the letter D must die in order to save America that they won't take such insanity seriously and order their deputies to do exactly that? What reasons do I have to trust them or take any reassurances they may give as anything but greasy deceptions?

It doesn't really matter if they believe such tripe or if they do it because it is politically expedient. They have all demonstrated they are unfit for office and a threat to our safety and security.

[just-jim]

Maybe they were thinking about some of king inslee's mandates which were not law...

Yet the WA Legislature has given the Governor pretty broad ‘emergency authority’.
From as far back as 1969, and re-affirmed as recently as 2019.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.06.220

Whether the Governor should have used said power, or not - or the manner and timing - can be debated.
But, he clearly had the authority to do so.

[PAL]

I like your idea David. I wrote Bob Ferguson about the legality of them taking an oath and then not following through on it. Bascially, lying, to get the job. Hmm, sounds familiar.

[Rideback]

A friend tells me that in Oklahoma the Constitutional Sheriffs tried this stunt and then when a shooting occurred they were charged in civil suits as being complicit. She says there's been a big backlash since those suits were filed AND WON!

[mister_coffee]

Maybe we should ask each candidate to go through the entire RCW and highlight laws they will not enforce?

Revised Code of Washington: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/

[PAL]

What is so bad about enhanced background checks for semi automatic assault rifles that are used to kill people?
Wake up Sheriffs and other law enforcement. And by the way, they are finding that police are being infiltrated by white supremecists and their ideals.
They want to kill every black or person of color they can. 60 bullets, 90 fired.
The majority of law enforcement is not like that.
Inslees mandates-Masking, being safe? That's so over with.

It could be suggested that concerned citizens write to Bob Ferguson, asking him, if the three candidates have disqualified themselves from running with the statements they made, 'reserving the right not to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional. I sure want an officer who will enforce laws.
I plan to vote by writing in a candidate.

[Rideback]

The Constitutional Sheriff: Wow

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/08/ ... 4AQAvD_BwE

[Rideback]

Open letter to Sherriffs from AG Bob Ferguson

'Open letter to Washington’s sheriffs and police chiefs refusing to enforce Initiative 1639:

In November 2018, Washingtonians overwhelmingly adopted Initiative 1639.

Numerous sheriffs and police chiefs have stated that they will not implement or enforce the initiative. I want to share my thoughts on this important issue, which affects both the safety of our communities and respect for the rule of law.

Like all laws passed by the people of Washington and their representatives, Initiative 1639 is presumed constitutional. No court has ruled that this initiative is unconstitutional.

I will defend Initiative 1639 against any legal challenge. My office defeated the legal challenge to the previous gun safety initiative passed by the people, and I am confident we will defeat any constitutional challenge to Initiative 1639 as well. Local law enforcement officials are entitled to their opinions about the constitutionality of any law, but those personal views do not absolve us of our duty to enforce Washington laws and protect the public.

I would like to focus on one component of Initiative 1639 in which you play a vital role, and have a legal obligation. Effective July 1, Initiative 1639 requires enhanced background checks for the purchase of semiautomatic assault rifles, which are identical to the enhanced background checks currently required for all handgun purchases in Washington state. Just like handgun purchases, local law enforcement officials are required to perform these background checks.

Local law enforcement has been performing these enhanced background checks for all handgun purchases in Washington state for many years. These enhanced background checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals who lawfully cannot own firearms because of a mental illness or criminal record. As far as I know, no Washington sheriff or police chief has refused to perform these enhanced background checks for handguns. Why refuse to perform them for semiautomatic assault rifles?

I am deeply concerned that the failure of local law enforcement to perform Initiative 1639’s background check requirement will jeopardize public safety in our state by allowing the sale of semiautomatic assault rifles to dangerous individuals not lawfully allowed to own a gun.

State law provides immunity to local law enforcement officers who run these checks “in good faith.” However, in the event a police chief or sheriff refuses to perform the background check required by Initiative 1639, they could be held liable if there is a sale or transfer of a firearm to a dangerous individual prohibited from possessing a firearm and that individual uses that firearm to do harm. In short, the taxpayers of your city or county assume the financial risk of your decision to impose your personal views over the law.

Outside your legal obligation to perform the background checks, you have discretion, of course, to prioritize your resources. This is a trust placed on you by the Washingtonians you serve. Enforcement discretion, however, cannot subvert the rule of law. All Washingtonians, including those of us in government, are equally subject to the law.

Analogies to marijuana and immigration law enforcement are misplaced. This is not a situation where the federal government is trying to force the state to enforce federal laws. Rather, Initiative 1639 was submitted to the people of Washington and was adopted as state law by nearly 60% of the people. No action by a city council or county commission can change this state law or the responsibilities and duties that the law vests in Washington’s law enforcement agencies.

I am personally deeply opposed to the death penalty, and have maintained reservations about its constitutionality for many years – but my personal feelings about the death penalty did not impact my duties as Attorney General. Last October, our State Supreme Court unanimously ruled in State v. Gregory that Washington’s death penalty was applied in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. Until the Gregory decision, however, my office continued to defend the death sentence in federal courts when death row inmates filed appeals, even after the Governor announced his moratorium. I did this out of respect for the rule of law. At the same time, I proposed legislation to the State Legislature to abolish the death penalty. If you personally disagree with Initiative 1639, seek to change it. Or file a lawsuit challenging it. But do not substitute your personal views over that of the people.

Under Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, “All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” As public officers, our duty is to abide by the will of the people we serve, and implement and enforce the laws they adopt. I encourage you to do so.

Sincerely,

BOB FERGUSON
Attorney General

[Rideback]

This explains the background and yes, it is a dangerous turn of events

https://wamu.org/story/19/02/21/when-sh ... e-the-law/

[pasayten]

Maybe they were thinking about some of king inslee's mandates which were not law...

[Rideback]

'The three candidates for Okanogan County sheriff, including the incumbent, made a rather startling assertion at last week’s public forum. As noted in the Methow Valley News story about the event, “All three said that they reserve the right not to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional.”

There is no such right — or at least none that we can find.

Sheriffs have a good deal of latitude, discretion and authority when it comes to enforcing the law. But they are neither qualified nor authorized to decide what is constitutional and what is not. The Legislature sets the laws, and if those statutes are legally challenged it is the judiciary that determines whether they are constitutional. Some sheriffs have argued that they would not enforce a specific law until the courts declared it constitutional. They got it backwards. It’s the law until declared unconstitutional.

The oath of office for law enforcement officers is unequivocal: They take a vow to uphold the laws of the state and the United States. Nowhere in the oath does it say, “unless I disagree.”

The state’s statutes are similarly explicit: “Shall execute the process and orders of the courts of justice or judicial officers, when delivered for that purpose, according to law.” According to law. And: “No sheriff shall appear or practice as attorney in any court, except in their own defense.” And again: “Shall attend the sessions of the courts of record held within the county, and obey their lawful orders or directions.”

Doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room there. According to an article on the Thomas S. Foley Institute of Public Police and Public Service website, “The state’s attorney general and other law enforcement officials have said that while local sheriffs have broad discretion over how to enforce state laws they may not unilaterally decline to enforce a law absent a court determination that the law violates the federal or the state constitution.”

Law enforcement doesn’t have to like all executive branch directives, or wholeheartedly embrace what the Legislature does in the name of reform. The state’s law enforcement community has had good reason to object to some things that have come out of Olympia the past couple of years. Legislative “reforms” have made their jobs more difficult or, in some cases, nearly impossible. They have felt hamstrung by unreasonable restrictions passed by people who don’t fully understand what law enforcement is up against in the real world, day-to-day.

When objections to the Legislature’s recent actions were fairly raised, some of those measures were revised or corrected. But there are still problems that local law enforcement can legitimately point to as detrimental to their duties and by extension harmful to the public.

That does not mean they get to ignore what’s on the books. Law enforcement leaders are expected to obey and enforce the laws. The three candidates at last week’s forum seemed to suggest that, in some cases of their own choosing, they might do neither.

That’s unacceptable. To assume that the sheriff can cherry-pick the state’s statutes conjures up some scary scenarios that, in the extreme, could lead to rogue actions that defy established law.

Sheriffs are elected officials, answerable to the people and bound by their oath. They are not independent arbiters of the law. You should challenge any candidate who says otherwise to cite the specific statue that allows them to ignore specific statutes. If the candidates would like to clarify or modify what they meant at the forum, we’d be happy to hear from them. We would require that they specifically reference the state-granted authority they have to interpret or ignore constitutional law.

Being a county sheriff is a tough job, and getting more so. In Okanogan County, the sheriff’s office is responsible for responding to all kinds of calls in a area larger than some states. The sheriff must be an administrator, supervisor, public relations manager and budget juggler as well as an able and experienced law enforcement officer. The sheriff also has to work well with the county’s other department heads and board of commissioners.

That’s a lot to ask and expect. Each of the three candidates is an experienced, well-credentialed law enforcement officer. Last week’s public forum, hosted by the Twisp Valley Grange, was a great opportunity to learn more about the three candidates and their views. Each candidate can and will make their best case for why they should be the electorate’s choice.

What they can’t make a case for is acting as if the sheriff is outside the law. That is a dangerous path to take even one step down.

[PAL]

Looks like the local Sheriffs Candidates have made a blunder. Read the latest in the MVN, Don Nelson's editorial and 2 letters that point out the facts.
The Sheriff's job is very difficult, granted.
The candidate that retracks what he said will be the winner. If none of them do, then no one wins, especially, we the People.