By C. J. Garbo | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
Few offices in American governance embody the spirit of freedom and self-governance as profoundly as that of the county sheriff. Rooted in centuries of tradition and safeguarded by constitutional principles, the elected sheriff stands as one of the most powerful and accountable defenders of liberty in the United States.
In Colorado, this role carries even greater significance, as the state’s history and values are deeply tied to independence, local control and resistance to government overreach. The idea of appointing sheriffs — rather than electing them — is not only an affront to these principles, it is a direct threat to the constitutional freedoms that this office was designed to protect.
To fully appreciate why sheriffs must remain elected, we must examine their constitutional foundation, their role as bulwarks against tyranny, and the catastrophic dangers of surrendering this position to appointment.
The concept of an elected sheriff traces back to common law traditions brought from England, where the “shire reeve” served as the chief law enforcement officer of local jurisdictions. When settlers established America, they embedded this tradition into our democratic system, ensuring sheriffs would be directly accountable to their constituents, rather than appointed by governors, mayors or bureaucratic agencies.
In Colorado, sheriffs are enshrined in Article XIV, Section 8 of the Colorado Constitution, which mandates that sheriffs be elected by the people of their counties. This design is deliberate. It ensures sheriffs derive their authority from the consent of the governed, not from political elites. Elected sheriffs take an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, and the rule of law. This oath is not symbolic — it is a solemn commitment to protect the rights of the people, even if that means opposing unlawful mandates or actions from other branches of government.
Perhaps the most critical role of an elected sheriff is serving as the final line of defense against government overreach and tyranny. Unlike appointed law enforcement officials, who answer to political bodies and can be fired for resisting unconstitutional orders, elected sheriffs answer only to the voters. This independence empowers them to push back against laws and mandates that infringe upon constitutional rights.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, many Colorado sheriffs refused to enforce lockdowns and mask mandates they believed violated fundamental freedoms. When Second Amendment rights came under attack, sheriffs in Colorado declared their counties “Second Amendment sanctuaries” and refused to enforce red flag laws they saw as unconstitutional. Sheriffs have also resisted federal overreach, including illegal property seizures and surveillance programs. These acts of defiance are not lawlessness — they are the actions of constitutional guardians standing between citizens and a potentially oppressive government.
The push to replace elected sheriffs with appointed officials must be seen for what it is — a blatant attempt to centralize control and weaken accountability. Advocates for appointed sheriffs claim it would depoliticize law enforcement, but precisely the opposite is true. Appointed sheriffs would answer to political boards and committees, not to the people, leaving them vulnerable to corruption, ideological influence and partisan entrenchment.
The stark contrast between law enforcement in Denver and Douglas County serves as a sobering testament to the consequences of governance by political appeasement versus governance by constitutional accountability. In Denver, the police chief — an appointed figure beholden to the mayor’s political agenda — has reduced (or eliminated) proactive policing to align with the ideological preferences of City Hall.
The result?
Denver has devolved into a haven for crime, where lawlessness festers, criminals operate with impunity, and public safety takes a backseat to political optics.
Meanwhile, here in Douglas County where I reside, the elected sheriff operates with the full authority and trust of the people, aggressively pursuing criminals, enforcing the law and prioritizing justice. Unlike Denver’s politically compromised leadership, Douglas County’s sheriff answers directly to the people — not politicians — ensuring an unwavering focus on protecting citizens rather than appeasing elites.
As a result, Douglas County is now forced to bear the weight of crimes spilling over from Denver, with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office doing more to protect Denver residents than the Denver Police Department itself. This is a tragic reality, especially considering the many honorable and respectable officers within the DPD who are being undermined by failed leadership and politically driven policies.
This striking difference between elected and appointed is more than procedural; it’s the lifeblood of liberty, proving that when leaders answer to the people rather than political masters, safety and justice prevail.
Instead of focusing on enforcing the law fairly, appointed law enforcement leaders would be incentivized to serve the interests of those who appointed them, whether those interests align with the community or not. Worse yet, removing sheriffs from the ballot would shield them from accountability and make it far more difficult for voters to demand change when abuses of power occur. An appointed sheriff would lack the independence to resist unconstitutional mandates, making them little more than enforcers of the political establishment’s agenda.
Colorado’s heritage is one of rugged individualism and local control, and its sheriffs reflect those values. They are the people’s last line of defense against tyranny, government overreach, and unlawful mandates. To appoint sheriffs instead of electing them would dismantle these protections, replacing a guardian of freedom with a political pawn who lacks independence and accountability. The risks are too great.
History teaches us that centralized power always leads to corruption, oppression and loss of freedom. By keeping sheriffs elected, we preserve the checks and balances that sustain our democratic republic.
Coloradans must stand firmly against any effort to strip the sheriff’s office of its constitutional foundation. The people deserve law enforcement officials who are directly accountable to them — not political appointees beholden to bureaucrats and special interests. Colorado sheriffs were designed to be the shield of liberty, and that shield must never be compromised. Now more than ever, we need leaders who will defend the Constitution, stand against overreach and protect the rights of the people they serve.
The office of sheriff was created to preserve those values – and it must remain elected to fulfill that mission.
C. J. Garbo is a seasoned law enforcement veteran and executive leader with more than 15 years of experience protecting communities and upholding constitutional principles. A certified graduate of the FBI-LEEDA Command Institute for Law Enforcement Executives, Garbo has dedicated his career to public safety and ethical leadership. In addition to his former law enforcement service, he currently serves as a cybersecurity executive for a global technology solutions company, bringing strategic expertise in security, governance, compliance and risk management.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.