'Constitutional sheriff' stance is troubling

Election Day is close. As I was reading the articles on the various contested races, I was struck by the statements made about the candidates in one race. That race is for Bonner County sheriff.

Both candidates identify themselves as a "constitutional sheriff." I was unfamiliar with the term, so I looked it up. The most common definition I found was that a "constitutional sheriff" was the most powerful elected individual in the country. The "constitutional sheriff" is able to enforce or disregard any law or regulation he (or she) determines to be unconstitutional.

That means a "constitutional sheriff" has more power than the president of the United States, Congress, or the U.S. Supreme Court. That is ridiculous on its face, and downright scary!

Since I am prohibited from voting for either candidate, I thought it was my duty to let all those eligible to vote May 21 what they were voting for. It should always be country over party and I don’t feel that a "constitutional sheriff" is what most really wants.

If I were able, I’d do a write-in vote for the sheriff race as "none of the above."

The important thing for everyone is to vote. It’s our county.

GIL BEYER

Sandpoint