As Utah voters consider Amendment C, which seeks to constitutionally mandate the election of county sheriffs, it’s crucial to understand the broader political and ideological context behind this seemingly minor change. On the surface, the amendment may appear to preserve local control by ensuring sheriffs are elected, but a closer look reveals far more troubling implications. Backed by extremist groups like the Eagle Forum and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), this amendment risks entrenching unchecked and unaccountable power into our legal framework.
To fully grasp the dangers of Amendment C, we must revisit the long history of far-right influence in Utah politics, particularly in Utah County, a region often referred to as a "conservative heaven." A Deseret News article from 1998 provides a telling glimpse into this political culture. In the piece, Gayle Ruzicka, the head of the Eagle Forum, describes Utah County as a place where she feels at home because its conservatism is not only political but rooted in lifestyle:
"When I go into a restaurant in Provo, the people in the booths around me are talking about church. We don't have a grocery store or convenience store that even thinks about selling a Playboy. Even coffee is hard to come by."
This ultra-conservative, theocratic mindset has a deep and enduring influence on Utah’s politics, especially through legislation pushed by the Eagle Forum. Ruzicka’s comment reflects a culture resistant to diversity of thought or lifestyle—one where any challenge to conservative values is fiercely opposed. It’s no surprise that the Eagle Forum is now backing Amendment C, which threatens to give local sheriffs near-unassailable power, echoing the right-wing extremism that has plagued Utah politics for decades.
The Radical Roots of Sheriff Power
The most alarming feature of Amendment C is its alignment with the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), a group that promotes the idea that sheriffs are the ultimate law enforcement authority—above state and federal law. In this worldview, sheriffs are empowered to defy laws they personally deem unconstitutional, a concept that directly undermines democratic accountability and the rule of law.
By embedding the election of sheriffs into the Utah Constitution, this amendment could enable corrupt or rogue sheriffs to hold onto their power even if they lose their POST certification (Peace Officer Standards and Training) due to misconduct or incompetence.
This level of unaccountable power has already been championed by figures like Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and CSPOA member who gained notoriety for successfully challenging the Brady Bill, a federal gun control measure, in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mack, who continued to call himself “sheriff” long after leaving office, was described in the 1998 Deseret News article as a prominent figure in Utah County’s far-right circles, known for his involvement in the militia and gun-show circuits. Mack and his followers have long advocated for sheriffs to defy federal authority, a position that underscores the real dangers of constitutionally enshrining the election of sheriffs.
Why is This Dangerous?
There are several reasons to be concerned about Amendment C’s long-term implications:
Lack of Accountability: Currently, sheriffs in Utah must maintain a valid POST certification, which can be revoked for misconduct or failure to meet law enforcement standards. Under Amendment C, even if a sheriff loses their POST certification, they could remain in office because the constitution would mandate their position based on election results, not on professional qualifications. This could leave counties with rogue sheriffs who are legally unqualified to serve, yet untouchable due to constitutional protections.
Entrenchment of Power: Constitutionalizing elected sheriff positions could make it harder to remove sheriffs involved in corruption or misconduct. This would create a scenario where sheriffs—who already have significant power—become even more insulated from consequences or reforms. Instead of serving their communities, some may serve their own interests, with limited oversight and accountability.
The Source of Support: The amendment’s most vocal supporters, the Eagle Forum and CSPOA, promote a vision of sheriffs as unchecked authorities. They believe sheriffs can defy federal mandates and laws if they personally disagree with them. Such beliefs could lead to more extreme interpretations of a sheriff’s role, undermining the rule of law and the balance of powers critical to maintaining a functional democracy.
The Inability to Reform
One of the most troubling consequences of Amendment C is the long-term impact it could have on law enforcement reform. By making the election of county sheriffs a constitutionally enshrined position, we are effectively locking Utah into a rigid system that will be difficult to change, even if future issues arise. In a world where law enforcement standards, community needs, and accountability measures are constantly evolving, embedding this position in the state constitution limits our ability to make necessary reforms. Should there be a need to address systemic issues, misconduct, or changing public safety dynamics, the process to amend the constitution would be significantly more complex and difficult than reforming a standard law. This inflexibility could prevent Utah from responding to future challenges in law enforcement, hindering our ability to adapt to better practices and stronger oversight.
The Stuart Adams Factor
We also can’t ignore who’s behind this push—Senate President Stuart Adams. Adams, known for his controversial leadership style, has had two of his four constitutional amendments struck from this year’s ballot by the Utah Supreme Court for being misleading and unlawful. These attempts were thinly veiled efforts to manipulate voters into approving measures that, on paper, seemed harmless but in reality had the opposite effect. We’d have to ignore years of Adams’ tactics, questionable leadership, and these failed amendments to believe that Amendment C is a benevolent, benign proposal.
Adams has consistently pushed legislation with hidden motives, reframing complex issues in ways that mislead the public. The fact that two of his amendments were removed by the Supreme Court underscores a pattern of deceptive lawmaking designed to manipulate voters. So when Adams backs Amendment C, we should be asking ourselves: What’s the real motive here?
What Happens If Amendment C Passes?
If Amendment C passes, Utah voters will have effectively locked in a system where sheriffs, already powerful figures, become nearly impossible to remove or hold accountable. Imagine a scenario where a sheriff loses their POST certification for misconduct but remains in office, shielded by constitutional protections. This is not a hypothetical concern—it’s a real possibility under this amendment.
The 1998 Deseret News article highlights how deeply intertwined radical conservatism is with Utah County’s political identity. The Eagle Forum and its allies have long sought to impose their rigid, theocratic worldview on Utah, and Amendment C is just the latest example of that effort. As Gayle Ruzicka remarked in the article, “It's less about politics than it is about lifestyle.” But make no mistake—this is politics, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Vote No on Amendment C
This amendment is not about protecting democratic processes or local control; it’s about insulating a powerful, often unaccountable role from future reforms and consequences. Utah voters should be aware of the hidden dangers lurking behind this measure.
Our state deserves law enforcement leaders who are held to the highest standards, not ones shielded by constitutional loopholes. This November, reject Amendment C and protect our communities from a future of unaccountable and unchecked law enforcement power.