The 2010 San Diego County Sheriff’s race was just beginning to heat up.  Or, not really.

The best thing to get a race going even more quickly and earlier than anticipated?  How about a mid-term retirement by the incumbent, and the hopefuls all facing an appointment process, with the winner being handed the title of “Appointed Incumbent.” 

Or, perhaps, the best thing to put a damper on a potential donnybrook.

If you thought last year’s San Diego City Attorney contest was a watcher, 2010 was going to be the big boy’s version, but with guns.  Metaphorically, of course.

Yet, only the most naïve of political hacks in town – or the most idealistically hopeful for a major countywide contest of this caliber (there’s that metaphor again) – didn’t see this one coming a few years ago.  Sheriff Bill Kolender would cakewalk to election in 2006, then announce his retirement about half-way through his four-year-term, and faced with no provision in the County Charter for a special election to fill the vacancy, the County Board of Supervisors would have no choice but to appoint the position.  

That “was” the scenario, anyway.  Now, “is" the scenario.

Oh, in case you missed it, three of the supervisors had already endorsed Kolender’s number two, Undersheriff Bill Gore for the position in the 2010 election.  This no doubt makes Gore the leading contender in an appointment situation.

To repeat a point that some have missed; that’s right, unlike in the case of most vacancies for local elected offices, the County Charter does not allow for a special election to fill a vacant sheriff’s spot.  Given the cost of a stand-alone special countywide election anyway (a ton more than $1 million, my guess), the County supervisors wouldn’t have likely gone that route even if provided the choice.  But, gone from the table is having to answer to those crying that democracy can only be served by the voters making the selection (I might have been among them).

This leaves options 1) an appointment, or 2) leaving the position vacant until the 2010 election, with an interim sheriff in place.  The subsets of option 1 would then be a) appointing someone that would most likely run in his/her own right in 2010, or b) appointing a "caretaker" sheriff who would commit not to run.  

Some would argue that the various problems associated with all of these scenarios other than 1a, quite frankly point to Gore running as a duly appointed incumbent in 2010.  By the way, it also further indicates that Sheriff Kolender knew exactly what he was doing when he ran for re-election in 2006, even though there was no logical reason for him to so, unless one counts "choosing a successor" as a logical reason.

That said, I’ve asked all of the announced 2010 contenders for sheriff, other than Gore (whom I will be providing some questions as a follow up in the next couple of days), to weigh in on the current situation.  As the Union-Trib noted this morning, It’s safe to say that regardless of where they may differ on various other issues, the sheriff hopefuls all might agree that an appointed incumbent would have something of a head start, if not a significant leg up in a 2010 contest.

Here are their complete statements (their respective significant backgrounds are in the U-T link above, as well):

David Bejarano

First of all, I want to recognize the tremendous service that Bill Kolender has provided in his career. I know that many citizens join me in expressing thanks to Sheriff Kolender for his public safety leadership.

I look forward to the campaign ahead.

James Duffy

San Diego County has not had a "serious" election for Sheriff in more than a decade.  By serious I mean one where candidates had enough chance of winning that they could raise the level of dialog about the race and the issues to a point where the public considered the consequences of their choices. Serious elections shine a light on the office being sought.  When the public and the media realize legitimate candidates provide real choices in an election, they dig deeper into the workings of the office.  It is time to dust off the Sheriff’s Office and do that digging.  We need to look at budgets, department structure, and overall levels of performance.

The thoughtful and reasoned approach would be to put another person in charge of the Sheriff’s Office who is not interested in permanently seeking the office.  This closes the door to political machinations within the office during the election and helps guarantee a fair decision-making process for the voters.

Jay La Suer

In America our form of Republic places tremendous value on the right of the people to elect their representatives, whether in the legislature or law enforcement.  I don’t believe that in an honest government there is any place for back room deals, cronyism or "Good Old Boy" succession.  

If we are to truly let the sun shine on politics then let’s clean it up and have an honest election.  An election allows for the vetting of the candidates, which allows the public to make an informed decision with their vote.  The "Wink & Nod" politics I am now observing makes me wonder who’s hiding what?

(At "blog time" I was awaiting Bruce Ruff’s statement, and will follow up with it, if provided.)

Duffy also added, "Perhaps the people should change the charter so that when this happens, seemingly more frequently, it’s a special election."

Here are links to the current board policy and the county charter – see section 500.3.

No aspersions cast, but just for fun, Hylton Lonstein, a longtime political watcher, sent me this:

The contenders concluded a contended election could’ve had the wrong contender winning the contest. So the conclusion concluded by the controllers was to avoid a conflict and connived to convince a majority to cooperate in coordinating the conclusion of one career while quickly causing chaos and contempt throughout the county.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.