It’s easy to understand why Idaho sheriffs might not want rivals for their re-election bids working on their staffs.

A campaign that features a sheriff running for re-election against a deputy or a jailer is awkward at best, divisive at worst. Such a situation brings politics into a department that already faces the tough job of keeping the peace in Idaho’s far-flung counties. It puts pressure on deputies to choose sides and invites retaliation on the part of the sheriff against a subordinate.

Conversely, deputies and jailers with leadership ability may be more qualified to run a department than the incumbent. They have hands-on knowledge of the inner workings of their departments and communities, which outsiders seldom have.

Although current law creates an uncomfortable situation by allowing deputies to run for the boss’s job, it’s still far better than one being sponsored by the Idaho Sheriff’s Association. Under the association proposal, a worker in the department would be forced to take an unpaid leave of absence to run against an incumbent. The measure all but guarantees that few deputies will take on an incumbent because they might not have the means to survive until the campaign is over.

House Bill 223, which was introduced to the House State Affairs Committee by a 10-7 vote last week, is a strategy for protecting incumbency. It should be rejected.

In a Spokesman-Review article, Sheriff Chuck Reynalds of Shoshone County, president of the sheriffs association, defended the proposal by saying: “We’ve got to have trust and loyalty from our employees. It’s very difficult to run an organization when a person under you has the power to make you look bad.”

Reynalds hails from a county that was the setting for one of the strangest sheriff’s races ever in Idaho.

In 1992, Undersheriff Dan Schierman challenged and defeated incumbent Sheriff Frank Crnkovich by 111 votes in the Democratic primary election. At the time, Crnkovich was facing charges that he took bribes in exchange for protecting an illegal gambling operation – a case that would end with a hung jury. In retaliation against Schierman’s candidacy and cooperation with FBI agents in a much-publicized gambling bust, Crnkovich initially assigned his second-in-command to watch duty in the jail yard and then fired him the day after the primary election. Schierman took a job in a hardware store at half the wages while he waited for the incumbent’s term to end and then completed two successful terms as sheriff.

In explaining his action to The Spokesman-Review in May 1992, Crnkovich said: “I did it to keep the stress down within the department and et cetera. That’s all there is. That’s not being a sore loser. I have to keep harmony within the department.”

The sheriffs association today is following the same script.

The situation facing incumbent sheriffs is no different from any other elected county official who might be challenged by a staffer. If an incumbent can’t handle a challenge from within the ranks, he or she might not be the best person for the job.