Despite ‘Good Guy’ Image, Sheriffs Endanger Elections and People

In her new book, The Highest Law in the Land: How the Unchecked Power of Sheriffs Threatens Democracy, author and The Appeal contributor Jessica Pishko writes that sheriffs have wrongfully been depicted as the “good guys” in fictional tales of the Wild West. 

But the reality is quite different. As Pishko writes, sheriffs have always upheld white supremacy, from the genocide of Indigenous people in the American West to modern-day attacks on immigrants and voting rights. According to Pishko’s research, the American public typically does not know the full extent of the power sheriffs hold—and the immense danger they pose when they abuse their elected positions. 

To combat these stereotypes, The Appeal spoke with Pishko about the history of sheriffs, their role in elections, and how to hold them accountable. The interview has been edited for clarity.

The Appeal: What is a sheriff? How does a sheriff differ from a police chief?

Jessica Pishko: The motivation as a sheriff is different from a police chief. Their career relies upon them getting reelected within the same community that they probably grew up in, whereas a police chief’s career relies more on keeping themselves hireable. 

Sheriffs have a wider range of responsibilities than police chiefs do. They run the jails. They might do gun record applications. They serve eviction notices. They often serve no contact orders. In some places, sheriffs do 911. They might run animal control. They get everything that nobody else is doing.

TA: In your book, you write, “You can’t talk about white supremacy without talking about sheriffs.” Why is that?

JP: The lineage of a sheriff that I found interesting—and that endures today—is that sheriffs have always been more quasi-militia than law enforcement. The sheriff was an office that was imported from England into colonial America. The sheriff then served as a functionary who largely collected taxes and did other things for the crown. 

But over time, as the United States became a country and the United States got larger, there was this idea of Manifest Destiny. Anglo settlers were going to move west and take over, and that meant moving or killing the Native Americans who lived there. And in some places, Mexicans were already living there, because some of the territory was owned by Mexico. One of the functions of the sheriff in the West was to serve as a militia unit and protect the Anglo settlers as they moved west. As a result, sheriffs were more involved in what we would call land theft and genocide.

TA: Do sheriffs have any role to play in elections?

JP: Particularly right-wing sheriffs have been organizing politically and agitating for sheriffs to be more involved in elections in a variety of ways. One of those ways has been to investigate alleged instances of election interference or voter fraud. 

To be clear, sheriffs don’t have an official role to play in anything related to elections. Sheriffs have essentially tried to widen their mandate to include things like surveillance of drop boxes, using deputies to transport ballots, and investigating potential instances of suspected voter fraud. The good news is that in 2020 and 2022 sheriffs organized to do this, and they were largely unsuccessful. There were no cameras over drop boxes installed. Some sheriffs did open election investigations, but they were all shut down. 

What I do worry about is sheriffs harassing and looking for crimes, in particular, among particular demographics. For example, in Arizona, a sheriff who is loosely part of the constitutional sheriff movement investigated a Spanish speaking community and went door-to-door and interviewed people. Ultimately, four Latino women were arrested and charged with crimes. One of them was the former mayor. She went to jail, lost her voting rights, and can never run for office again. 

They would say, ‘Oh, we’re deterring voter voter fraud.’ But what they’re actually deterring is people voting or being engaged with the government, and that’s the goal. 

TA: Why are sheriffs more likely to conduct these sort of election-related “investigations” than a police department?

JP: Sheriffs are the most politically motivated and they tend to be more conservative than other law enforcement. 

TA: How can we create accountability for sheriffs or some kind of check on their power?

JP: The issue with [voting out sheriffs] is that you’ll have to go county by county. That’s a really tedious process. One of the ideas some advocates have had is to work on more statewide changes, so things like requiring sheriff candidates to undergo the same background checks as rank-and-file police. Police and even deputies often have quite a number of rules and background checks they have to follow, and sheriffs don’t. 

The other thing I think is important, not just for sheriffs, but law enforcement overall, is to have state bodies that conduct real investigations into police violence and abuse of power that don’t rely on individual lawsuits. If we want these institutions to work, then the impetus is really on  the government to make it work. It shouldn’t be on individual citizens to bring lawsuits. 

ICYMI—From The Appeal

In the wake of Hurricane Helene, prisons and jails across the Southeast experienced significant disruptions—including power outages, staff shortages, and evacuations.

After the Department of Justice issued a scathing report on Phoenix Police officers’ conduct, residents say the department and city are fighting the DOJ and trying to hamstring reform efforts.

Reverend Christobal Kimmenez, a Philadelphia pastor, advocates for victims and perpetrators of crime, even after his own son was shot to death at 14.

A recent court hearing for a man found not guilty of murder but sentenced to life anyway centered on whether police hid evidence from defense attorneys. But a federal agent with knowledge of the missing evidence refused to testify, citing his busy schedule. He sat in the courtroom all day anyway.