A letter signed recently by a majority of Washington sheriffs — including Clark County’s Chuck Atkins — was unnecessary and raises as many questions as it answers.
Members of the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association wrote that they “reaffirm our sworn oaths to ‘support, obey and defend’ the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington.” They then mentioned the Second Amendment while declining to specify any other constitutional rights.
The letter was signed by 37 of Washington’s 39 sheriffs. King County’s Mitzi Johanknecht declined to sign; according to the The (Spokane) Spokesman-Review, she did not respond to multiple requests for comment. And nobody from Kitsap County signed the letter; the sheriff there recently retired and a replacement has not been appointed.
Presumably, each of the signees already has vowed to defend the constitution; it is part of their oath of office. Yet the current political climate, in the minds of the sheriffs, dictated the need for such a statement. Several officers said the most frequent questions they field from the public involve the right to bear arms.
Therein lies a problem. Debate about Second Amendment rights is driving political divisions and stoking fear. In the letter, the sheriffs refer to “destructive influences,” without defining what those might be — allowing the public to fill in the blanks with their own private fears. In a situation that calls for calm reassurance, they have allowed for personal anxieties — whether founded or unfounded — to fill the void.
In the process, the sheriffs have embraced a troublesome trend that permeates American discourse — clinging to what people imagine the Constitution to be rather than what it actually is. Indeed, a sheriff’s job is to defend that Constitution, but there is no room for personal interpretation when it comes to enforcement.
Under our rule of law, the courts decide what is constitutional when a question arises. But a growing sentiment — particularly among those on the far right of the political spectrum — suggests that there is some wiggle room if an individual does not agree with a court decision.
In November, Republican Loren Culp — then a one-person police department in the town of Republic — ran for governor and qualified for the general election. Much of his platform centered on a refusal to enforce voter-approved Initiative 1639, a gun-control law. A federal judge upheld the law as constitutional, but that did not fit Culp’s fabricated view of the law.
The fact that Culp received 1.7 million votes while losing to Jay Inslee demonstrates the depth of the public’s willingness to contrive false interpretations of the Constitution.
The key portion of the sheriffs’ letter is one that likely will be overlooked by those who find comfort in the statement — a vow to “obey.” A promise to obey the Constitution implies a dedication to adhere to judicial review. The public must pay attention to that portion of the letter, lest we continue to substitute interpretations that undermine the foundation of our constitutional system.
Such substitutions include the sheriffs referring to the U.S. Constitution as “divinely inspired” and saying they will rely on “Providence,” inserting phrases that do not appear in either constitution.
Indeed, there should be nothing controversial about sheriffs promising to uphold the U.S. and state constitutions. But the language they used and the fact that they already have made such a vow only generate questions about their intent.
