Now for this I will protest.....

[Lainey]

At least a majority of Maricopa County voters. Is there that much fear (justified or unjustified) of illegals there that they applied the omelet theory of law enforcement for twenty-odd years?

We simply have a hard-core set of voters - citizens who vote in every election - that will vote straight R no matter what. Even experienced law enforcement professionals who campaigned and/or ran against him, laying out the facts of what was really happening, didn't seem to sway these voters. I sincerely wish those who blindly kept voting for Arpaio would now shoulder the burden of paying the $20 Million in costs for his trial and judicial settlements and let those of us who never voted for him keep that tax money.

To me the moral of this debacle is that a sheriff of a county of 4.2 million people needs to be an appointed position, not an elected one.

[bae]

To me the moral of this debacle is that a sheriff of a county of 4.2 million people needs to be an appointed position, not an elected one.

Probably the wrong take-away.

Sheriffs in the USA are typically elected positions, partially to establish an independent check over the power of local government, responsible directly to the people. Removing this would be unwise, it seems to me - having a County Council appoint a Sheriff would make the Sheriff part of the problem.

We had a problem with our last Sheriff. One year later, we had a new Sheriff in town as the result of an election. The entire tone and focus of a Sheriff's Department can be changed with a single election.

[razz]

And then.....Ontario has its provincial police who may not be perfect but cannot be controlled by a political party with any ease. They simply obey the law as it is written. It has boggled my mind to have an elected officerl to enforce the law but I know that in many cases it has worked out very well in the US. Just saying....

[bae]

And then.....Ontario has its provincial police who may not be perfect but cannot be controlled by a political party with any ease. They simply obey the law as it is written. It has boggled my mind to have an elected officerl to enforce the law but I know that in many cases it has worked out very well in the US. Just saying....

The US has an interesting system of overlapping jurisdictions. For instance, Maricopa County in Arizona is *huge*. 9224 sq. miles. That's about the size of Rwanda, or Macedonia. Within Maricopa County, are some major cities: Phoenix, Scottsdale, Chandler for example. Those cities can, and do, have their own police departments, with primary jurisdiction in their incorporated area.

Sheriffs typically handle law enforcement in the hinterlands, the low-population rural areas. They also serve the County Court in some functions. Small towns in rural areas often choose to contract with the Sheriff to provide primary law enforcement functions in their area, rather than trying to set up their own small department.

My County has a Sheriff, with a handful of officers. The one incorporated town in the County is quite small, and has had no interest in developing their own law enforcement arm. As a result, our Sheriff is responsible for the entire county, and also runs the Dispatch Center, which multiple agencies contract out to to handle our calls.

I am an elected official in my area of the County, and the district I am responsible for has the legal power to create our own police force, but we also have decided that would be a poor use of funds and time.

[razz]

Does sound much more complex than I imagined. Thanks for the clarification. Our community did have a regional police service but chose to go the provincial police route with many of the regional officers incorporated into the provincial system. Either way the municipality's pension liabilities and members' benefits were covered both ways for the police.

[jp1]

At least a majority of Maricopa County voters. Is there that much fear (justified or unjustified) of illegals there that they applied the omelet theory of law enforcement for twenty-odd years?

I'd question whether it's fear or simply hatred.

[LDAHL]

To me the moral of this debacle is that a sheriff of a county of 4.2 million people needs to be an appointed position, not an elected one.

Because some things are too important to trust to the voters?

Because appointments, say to the Supreme Court, are made in a wise and apolitical fashion?

[LDAHL]

I'd question whether it's fear or simply hatred.

I think the one often leads to the other. But I don't think you can chalk it up to simple racism. I also think a guy like this doesn't come out of a vacuum. He comes to power because people believed the federal government was indifferent to the consequences of an uncontrolled border for various reasons, and unwilling to act.

[Lainey]

Because some things are too important to trust to the voters?

Because appointments, say to the Supreme Court, are made in a wise and apolitical fashion?

Because these positions need to be filled by professionals, not by an ideologue pandering to the most fearful of our society.

I'd suggest it happen in the same way that Arizona state judges are selected: they are not elected. Their peers in the legal community nominate them, or you as an attorney can nominate yourself, for an opening. A judicial commission, again comprised of highly knowledgeable and experienced professionals, then forwards names of finalists to the governor for his or her selection. Judges are then appointed, although once in their position, they are then on the ballot for voters to re-appoint them or not.

AZ Judges do not have to pander to anyone because they do not have to campaign for election or re-election. Using this system has resulted in our state judiciary being composed of very good judges, which of course makes them a target of our Republican legislature because they will not lay down and do their bidding.

[Lainey]

I think the one often leads to the other. But I don't think you can chalk it up to simple racism. I also think a guy like this doesn't come out of a vacuum. He comes to power because people believed the federal government was indifferent to the consequences of an uncontrolled border for various reasons, and unwilling to act.

The rise in Arpaio's popularity correlated directly with the beginning of the 2010/2011 recession. Originally Arpaio said he would not use resources to pursue undocumented immigrants who had not committed any crimes but because a scapegoat was needed for the economic downturn and the anti-immigrant voices were so vocal, he quickly realized the popularity of this pursuit.

And btw, President Obama had the highest number of border guards to date, so the federal government was not "unwilling to act." The biggest challenge is the lack of prosecution of employers who hire these people, most of whom turn a blind eye to their status but they remain unafraid of consequences because no one wants to challenge big business.