Recently, Columbian writer Ann Donnelly claimed that I, Rey Reynolds, Clark County sheriff candidate, am leaning toward a “constitutional sheriff movement.” It’s disturbing that Ms. Donnelly would unashamedly say these things to smear my name and defile my stance. Let me be very clear: Every sheriff is (or at least should be) a “constitutional sheriff.”
Elected sheriffs are accountable directly to the Constitution (United States and Washington state, in this case) and to the people. S/he is elected to safeguard the rights of the people and exercise the powers the public has entrusted to him or her. That’s not a “movement” as Ms. Donnelly suggests. That’s a fact of the position.
I could rebut just about every sentence in her editorial, but instead, I will leave it to this: I, like Martin Luther King, Jr., believe that any law that strips a person of basic human dignity is unjust (which is what I also told the Columbian, whose editorial board twisted my words). Like King said, “Any unjust law is no law at all.” That said, there are some laws with which I do not agree, and yet I must uphold as a current officer (and I would have to uphold as sheriff).
There are still more laws, such as I-1639, that are being legally challenged as unconstitutional. With multiple pending lawsuits, it would not only be irresponsible to enforce such a law but would also violate the sacred trust between the community and their sheriff, much like what happened in Plessy vs. Ferguson. It was 122 years after his Constitutional rights were blatantly violated due to an unjust and racist law that Homer Plessy was finally pardoned.
The sheriff is the ultimate law enforcement authority in a county, whether Ms. Donnelly likes it or not, because the electorate places him or her there. S/he has no duties to governmental agencies or political influence, but solely to the people. If their sheriff will not stand up and protect the community from unjust laws, to whom can they turn when in need of protection?
Rey Reynolds,
Clark County
