Utahns are about to vote on Amendment C, which seems harmless at first glance: It proposes enshrining the practice of electing county sheriffs into the state’s Constitution. But take a step back, and it becomes clear that this amendment is not only unnecessary but could also have long-lasting consequences for law enforcement, police reform, and politics in Utah. Here’s why I’m recommending a NO vote on Amendment C.
What Amendment C Really Does
Currently, Utah elects its county sheriffs by statute, a system that gives voters a say in who enforces the law in their county. Amendment C would lock this process into the Utah Constitution, making it difficult to change down the line. While that might sound like a good way to protect local control, it comes with several hidden dangers, particularly in how it could inject more politics into law enforcement (University of Utah Debate) (Ballotpedia).
Why This Matters: Politics and Law Enforcement Don’t Mix
The idea of electing sheriffs has always been political, but by embedding it into the Constitution, Amendment C could take this even further—turning sheriffs into full-blown political actors. We’ve seen the potential for abuse elsewhere. Look at Arizona, where certain sheriffs have used their positions not just to enforce the law but to engage in political culture wars.
In an era where rural sheriffs, particularly in deeply conservative areas, are being asked to take sides on everything from federal land use to immigration enforcement, we should be wary of further empowering them to push a political agenda. This would particularly impact rural Utah, where sheriffs could feel emboldened to ignore state or federal lawsin favor of local, politically driven stances. If you want a glimpse of what that could look like, just think of how certain counties across the U.S. have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” or refused to enforce federal mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A Blow to Future Police Reform
As Utah becomes more politically diverse, particularly in urban and suburban areas, the hope for future police reformbecomes more tangible. Amendment C, however, could cement a system that makes real reform harder to achieve. By locking sheriff elections into the Constitution, we would be restricting flexibility for future reforms that could involve moving toward an appointed system, where sheriffs are chosen based on qualifications and performance rather than political appeal.
In the same way that Arizona’s extremist sheriffs have used their positions to push far-right agendas, Amendment C could encourage a similar trend in Utah. This could have a chilling effect on meaningful law enforcement reforms and criminal justice changes that might otherwise be possible as Utah’s political landscape continues to shift. With more progressive-leaning voices emerging, particularly in urban centers like Salt Lake City, the ability to pursue thoughtful, effective police reform is something we should protect—not undermine with an unnecessary constitutional amendment.
Why We Should Say NO
We don’t need Amendment C to ensure local control over law enforcement—it’s already happening under current statute. What this amendment would do, however, is lock Utah into a more politicized and potentially polarized law enforcement model that’s far harder to reform in the future. By making sheriff elections a constitutional mandate, we risk pushing our law enforcement system deeper into the culture wars, rather than focusing on impartial, effective policing.
This amendment doesn’t solve a pressing problem. Instead, it creates new ones, restricting future possibilities for how we organize law enforcement and adding a heavy dose of politics into a space where neutrality and professionalism should reign.
The Utah Legislature’s Extremist Legacy
Let’s not forget the context here. The Utah Legislature has a track record of pushing measures that entrench GOP control and slow down progress toward a more inclusive, reformed state.
Whether it’s through gerrymandering, voter suppression tactics, or past attempts like Amendment D, the Legislature has repeatedly shown that its goal is to preserve the status quo, not move Utah forward.
Amendment C fits into this pattern: It’s a seemingly innocuous change, but one that could block the path to necessary reforms. By cementing sheriff elections in the Constitution, the Legislature is ensuring that even if Utah becomes more politically diverse in the coming years, rural sheriffs—bolstered by the far-right elements of their communities—will still wield significant, unchecked political power.
Conclusion: Vote NO on Amendment C
Amendment C is an unnecessary and potentially harmful change to our Constitution. It risks politicizing law enforcement even further and could block the path for future police reforms, which are crucial as Utah’s political landscape shifts. Let’s not follow Arizona’s example and allow our sheriffs to become political actors in culture wars. Instead, we should focus on keeping law enforcement impartial and focused on public safety.
Vote NO on Amendment C and keep the door open for real, meaningful reform in Utah.
Addendum: The Risk of Sheriffs Avoiding Accountability Under Amendment C
A key issue to consider with Amendment C is its potential to elevate the sheriff's role beyond current checks and balances. Currently, sheriffs in Utah, like all law enforcement officers, must obtain and maintain certification through the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) program. POST certification is vital for ensuring officers are trained and disciplined according to established standards. If a sheriff engages in misconduct or fails to uphold their oath, POST has the authority to strip them of their certification, effectively disqualifying them from law enforcement roles.
However, by making the position of sheriff a constitutionally mandated role, Amendment C could lead to a dangerous loophole. Even if a sheriff were stripped of their POST certification for serious misconduct, they could technically remain in office since the role would be constitutionally protected.
This undermines the authority of POST and could embolden radical or extremist individuals in rural counties, potentially allowing them to continue violating laws or ignoring state mandates without immediate recourse. In other words, a sheriff stripped of their certification might still wield significant power in law enforcement, without the necessary oversight that certification provides (DPS Training) (Utah Legislature)
The implications are significant for public safety. Currently, POST has the power to ensure law enforcement officers are held accountable, but if a constitutionally protected sheriff refuses to step down or comply with POST decisions, local governance might find itself powerless to act. In extreme cases, this could lead to situations where rogue sheriffs continue to enforce—or refuse to enforce—laws based on personal political ideologies, with little accountability
This additional layer of complexity makes Amendment C not just an unnecessary change, but a dangerous one that could erode the mechanisms in place to maintain professional, impartial law enforcement in Utah. It's another strong reason to vote NO on Amendment C.
Amendment C proposes locking the election of county sheriffs into the Utah Constitution, a move that risks further politicizing law enforcement and stifling future police reform.
Full Text of the Ballot Language:
"Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to require the election of county sheriffs in all counties?" (University of Utah Debate) (Ballotpedia).