RALEIGH — On Tuesday, North Carolinians will be asked whether they want to amend the state constitution to prohibit all ex-felons from serving as sheriffs.
The title of the ballot measure reads: “Constitutional amendment providing that no person convicted of a felony may serve as Sheriff. For/Against.”
On its face, the answer would seem obvious — of course felons shouldn’t be allowed to serve as sheriff. However, there’s a lot more to this issue that should convince voters to reject this ballot measure.
Amending the state constitution should be an action taken in only rare circumstances. We don’t want to amend the state constitution whenever politicians or certain special interests feel like changing the most important legal document in the state. In this instance, there’s no basis for a change.
There’s not a single instance where an ex-felon has become a sheriff in North Carolina. Recently, there have been some ex-felons running in primaries, but in all those instances, voters didn’t support those candidates. This voting history works against proponents of the prohibition — voters have already proven to be an obstacle for ex-felons trying to become sheriffs.
Certainly, there could be instances in the future where voters elect an ex-felon. Voters though are fully capable of determining on their own whether an individual’s criminal history should disqualify the person as serving as sheriff.
The ballot measure would prohibit all ex-felons from serving as a sheriff. No distinction is made between the ax murderer and the nonviolent ex-felon who committed a crime decades ago and has since lived an honorable and law-abiding life.
As a result, the prohibition is overbroad by not allowing ex-felons who may be reasonable candidates from ever running for sheriff. There’s no reason voters couldn’t feel justified that such a candidate is the most qualified despite a past felony.
The proposed prohibition serves as a means to deny rights not only to ex-felons, but also to future voters who want to elect the best possible candidates. Once the state goes down this path by passing this prohibition, it would be extremely difficult to change. We shouldn’t pass laws today that restrict our rights tomorrow.
It may sound good today to prohibit ex-felons from running for sheriff, but we don’t have a crystal ball to know whether a future ex-felon would be the best candidate in a given election — voters in a specific election would be best situated to make that decision.
Proponents argue that sheriffs are allowed to have felony records but not the police officers they would supervise. This may be true, but the fault lies with the law prohibiting ex-felons from becoming police officers. If there’s a concern that neither sheriffs nor police officers should get favorable treatment, then state law should be changed to allow ex-felons to serve in those police officer positions.
The North Carolina Sheriffs Association argues that the possibility of an ex-felon running for sheriff tarnishes the office of sheriff. However, people running for sheriff have no impact on the office. Those who can have an impact on the office are the ones who win elections. Besides, such a flimsy argument does not justify the drastic action of amending the state constitution.
The ballot measure is an insult to North Carolinians. It’s being proposed because there’s a fear that voters don’t have the intelligence to make a wise decision should an ex-felon run for sheriff. It’s an even greater insult because those pushing the change have provided no evidence that letting ex-felons serve as sheriffs would be a problem in this state.
Voters should look past the superficial appeal of this ballot measure and recognize that we don’t need to take drastic action for a non-problem that will restrict the rights of ex-felons and all future voters in North Carolina.
Daren Bakst is Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies at the John Locke Foundation.