The best explanation is that Brad Wilson sponsored the bill before he left for his Senate race so that he could curry favor with rural Republicans, who embrace the idea of a Constitutional Sheriff. Of course, Brad lost any more opportunity when his campaign didn’t survive in the Republican Primary to John Curtis.

The bill originated as 2023 HRJ010, and was one of the last bills that Brad Wilson sponsored before he left office last year. In the October 4 podcast of City Cast Salt Lake, Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune opines that it was downplayed.

Wilson says it doesn’t really change anything, but there is this undercurrent, this philosophy in conservative circles of a constitutional sheriff, which says that the sheriff is the supreme law of the county. This kind of plays into that. You can’t have a constitutional sheriff unless your sheriff is in the constitution. – Robert Gehrke (paraphrased)

The Constitutional Sheriff movement is about sheriffs having the power to interpret and enforce the constitution. Amendment C has nothing to do with sheriffs enforcing the constitution or giving sheriffs extra power. But it does embed the election of the Sheriff in Utah’s constitution, rather than simply have a law in Utah code. And Gehrke’s line of thought supports this idea of a Constitutional Sheriff in Utah.

Another suggested explanation for Amendment C was that Republicans were angry with Salt Lake County Sheriff Rivera, and threatened to change the law to make Sheriffs appointed instead of elected so they could remove her. However this doesn’t make much sense. The appointment would be by the local authority, and Salt Lake County is predominantly Democratic. By election law, impeachment is still possible. Republicans in the legislature know this, and with Brad Wilson and Stuart Adams as sponsors, there is zero chance that they were seeking to preserve Sheriff Rivera’s electability.

2023 was a tumultuous year for the Salt Lake County Sheriff and UPD. It’s worth noting that 2023 HB374, sponsored by Rep Jordan Teuscher, removed the Salt Lake County sheriff as CEO of the Unified Police Department and ultimately dissolves the agency in 2025, leaving Holladay, Midvale, Millcreek, Kearns, Copperton, White City and Magna to find new law enforcement services.

Rivera opposed the Teuscher bill to separate UPD from the Sheriff’s office in 2023, then decided she was okay with it. I’m wondering if this is another case where the GOP did something and she was like, what the hell but okay.

For the record, the Salt Lake County Democratic Party does recommend a “For” vote. I requested more information, and this statement was provided:

“As the Salt Lake County Democratic Party, our primary role is to support Democratic candidates who serve our community, and we are proud to stand behind Sheriff Rosie Rivera. Voting “Yes” on Amendment C is crucial because it ensures that the position of sheriff remains an elected one—decided by the people, not appointed by officials. By doing so, we protect the democratic process and safeguard the accountability that comes from direct elections. This is not only important for Sheriff Rivera, but also opens the door for more diverse candidates, including women and people of color, to compete fairly for the role. A “Yes” vote on Amendment C would enshrine in the state constitution that every county will elect a sheriff to serve four-year terms. This maintains the voice of the community in choosing its leaders and supports a fairer, more inclusive system of representation.”

Both side provide similar arguments on how elections or appointments make the community better. Elections allow anyone who meets qualifications for the office to run and hold the position, and are considered “safe” from political disputes while in office. This also means that an elected sheriff can run off the rails (think Joe Arpaio in Arizona) and not suffer consequences. Appointments make a sheriff more accountable to leadership and the community but can become tangled in political controversy. Appointments are more likely to be a cis-gendered white male, so if diversity is your thing you may want to elect your sheriff.

We don’t have a clear picture of the “why” behind this amendment, but it’s safe to say that the need to transform how a sheriff takes their role in Utah counties isn’t at risk today, and has little chance of being altered as a law in the future. Changing Utah’s code so that the election of a Sheriff is written into the Utah Constitution seems to only serve the narrow purpose of making right-wing conservatives think they are one step closer to having their version of a Constitutional Sheriff within Utah’s borders.

There isn’t a clear picture on whether to vote “For” or Against” Amendment C, but I am voting against it without a compelling reason to change the existing law.

References

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *