1. United States
2. Mo.
3. Letter

I urge you to oppose SJR40 (Carter, HJR61 (Cook), HJR71 (Jacobs), and HJR40 (Whaley), which propose a constitutional amendment relating to the election and duties of sheriffs. This amendment threatens accountability, civil liberties, and the balance of power in Missouri. While framed as a safeguard for law enforcement integrity, it risks normalizing overreach, insulating sheriffs from oversight, and chilling dissent. 1. “Quell and Suppress” Language Endangers Civil Liberties The directive for sheriffs to “quell and suppress riots, routs, affrays, and insurrections” is dangerously broad and subjective. Historically, terms like “riot” have been weaponized to criminalize peaceful protests, particularly those advocating for racial justice, labor rights, or political reform. By conflating lawful assembly with criminal activity, this language invites sheriffs to suppress dissent under the guise of maintaining order. Coupled with the mandate to “apprehend traitors”—a term steeped in political vagueness—this provision could justify targeting activists, journalists, or marginalized communities. Such power, unchecked by local accountability, poses a direct threat to First Amendment rights. 2. Quo Warranto Removal: A License for Abuse Limiting sheriff removal to quo warranto—a process controlled by the Attorney General—shields sheriffs from consequences for misconduct. Recalls, suspensions, and local oversight exist to protect communities from bad actors. By eliminating these safeguards, the amendment empowers rogue sheriffs to act with impunity, eroding public trust in law enforcement. 3. Centralized Power Invites Corruption Allowing sheriffs to unilaterally hire deputies, set their pay, and fire them at will fosters patronage systems and politicized policing. Without oversight, sheriffs could stock departments with loyalists, prioritize retaliation over justice, and drain county budgets. Concentrating unchecked authority in one individual undermines transparency and fairness. 4. One-Size-Fits-All Mandate Disregards Local Needs Counties have diverse challenges: urban areas may require collaborative policing models, while rural regions rely on traditional sheriff roles. This amendment imposes a rigid, election-based structure on some counties while ignoring the realities of modern law enforcement. Local governments deserve flexibility to innovate and adapt—not a constitutional straitjacket. This proposed amendment is a reckless expansion of law enforcement power disguised as reform. Its vague “quell and suppress” mandate risks criminalizing dissent, its removal of accountability mechanisms enables abuse, and its rigidity stifles local solutions. Missourians deserve constitutional guardrails that protect both safety *and* liberty—not a flawed proposal that sacrifices both. I urge you to reject this dangerous amendment.