"In theory, this allows informed and nuanced voters to split their ballots, allowing them to vote in the sheriff they feel is best qualified regardless of political affiliation while otherwise voting down the party line. The recent fiasco shows the result of this approach in practice: instability. The previous sheriff, a historic first in many respects, didn't even finish her term before allegations of misconduct and abuse of power surfaced."
"The Mercury reported the county's efforts to investigate, litigate and ultimately remove the former sheriff cost taxpayers more than $4.6 million. That figure doesn't include the countless hours of staff time, community division and the paralysis within a department already struggling with in-custody deaths, mail backlogs and morale problems. The cost of electing an unfit sheriff was paid not just in dollars but also in public confidence."
San Mateo's board of supervisors appointed Kenneth Binder as sheriff, bypassing the will of the voters. Sheriffs wield enormous local power, overseeing multimillion-dollar agencies, managing jails and setting enforcement priorities that shape communities. The electoral model assumes voters can evaluate candidates like a hiring committee, enabling split-ballot choices. Recent events produced instability when a historic sheriff did not complete her term amid allegations of misconduct, prompting board intervention, a search for a successor and extensive costs. Investigations, litigation and removal efforts cost taxpayers more than $4.6 million and contributed to staff time, community division, departmental paralysis and eroded public confidence. Elections can reduce complex hiring decisions to popularity contests.
Read at The Mercury News
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]