"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
- St. Augustine
Confusion abounded in the minds of many Lee County residents this week after receiving a campaign flier from District Judge candidate Clay Thomas which featured him posturing for an imposing portrait while standing with Sheriff's Office personnel in front of a Sheriff's Office vehicle. This left many voters wondering if it was reasonable to interpret this photo as a tacit endorsement by the Lee County Sheriff's Office in favor of candidate Thomas. Some questions that may logically arise could include;
Is this legal?
Is this ethical?
Is this unfair to the other two candidates competing for the same nomination, Harold Morris and Samantha Copelan?
According to a response by Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones to an inquiry by the LaFayette Sun newspaper and published in their February 7th edition, he stated;
"We have not endorsed any candidate in any race."
Jones went on to further comment that it was a photo
"with peace officers. It does not signify an endorsement of any kind. Any interpretation to the contrary is incorrect."
When a voter looks at that photo, can we reasonably expect that they would come to the same conclusion as Jones? Or, would it be more logical to assume that they might conclude that this was indeed an endorsement of candidate Thomas by the Lee County Sheriff's Office?
According to Alabama Code Title 17. Elections § 17-1-4;
"When off duty, out of uniform, and acting as a private citizen, no law enforcement officer, firefighter, or peace officer shall be prohibited from engaging in city, county, or state political activity or denied the right to refrain from engaging in political activity so long as there is compliance with this section."
Is that what we are seeing in this photo? Without being able to conclusively determine whether these Sheriff's Office personnel were on or off duty, they certainly appear to be "in uniform" as opposed to "out of uniform". We will leave it up to legal experts to determine the ethical implications at play here, but at first glance this photo does seem indicate conduct which falls outside of law enforcement activity that is protected by state law.
In an excerpt from the 2022 Code of Alabama Title 17 - Elections. Chapter 17 - Election Offenses. Section 17-17-5 - Improper Use of State Property, Time, etc., for Political Activities
it states;
"No person in the employment of the State of Alabama, a county, a city, a local school board, or any other governmental agency, whether classified or unclassified, shall use any state, county, city, local school board, or other governmental agency funds, property, or time, for any political activities."
Once again, these determinations are best left to legal experts. However, one can't help but wonder if anything in this photo runs afoul of these ethical guidelines.
In a June 2022 advisory opinion issued by the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission regarding the political activity of candidates running for judicial office, district attorney and sheriff it poses the question;
"May a criminal judge publicly support, including making contributions to and attending fundraising events of, candidates for district attorney and sheriff in the judge’s circuit under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics? Answer: A judge is strongly discouraged, but not prohibited, from making contributions to the candidates’ campaigns, but should not publicly support either candidate."
Later on in that same opinion it states;
"Therefore, it is the opinion of the Commission that a judge is strongly discouraged, but not prohibited, from contributing to the campaigns of a district attorney and sheriff in the judge’s circuit. Should a judge decide to make such contributions, the judge must take care to ensure that the manner and method of the contribution would not create a reasonable question as to his impartiality, so as to cause his frequent disqualification from cases in which those officials would appear."
Although the roles are somewhat reversed in this particular case considering it is a candidate running for District Judge being ostensibly endorsed by the Sheriff's Office, one might hope that a sitting sheriff would be held to equally high standards of conduct regarding political endorsements of a candidate for the judiciary in his district.
Of course, it is quite understandable why Sheriff Jones would seek to steer clear of the bad optics of a poorly received political endorsement.
For all those in need of a refresher on this topic, we strongly encourage readers to revisit our previous article https://www.eaexaminer.com/post/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-means-collective-punishment-for-all-lee-county-residents
There is just a touch of irony that Jones' star-crossed 2014 endorsement of Mike Hubbard will be celebrating its ignominious tenth anniversary this coming May. This ill-advised aid and comfort lamentably took place against the sordid backdrop of Hubbard being investigated by the State Attorney General's Office which ultimately led to the felony conviction of, and subsequent prison incarceration of Alabama's corrupt Speaker of the House. Ten years, zero regrets discernible from Jones in the wake of a Made in Lee County fiasco that could have been easily avoided when reflecting on a June 2015 Auburn Villager editorial where author Don Eddins wrote that he was "told that others were asked to cut ads for Hubbard and declined, and perhaps Jones and Ham should have acted similarly, but for their own reasons chose to appear in the television ads."
Ten years later, no mea culpa, no apology to the citizens of Lee County from Sheriff Jones for his defense of the indefensible. Perhaps a bit older, a tad more cautious while employing parsed legalese deflections of responsibility when caught with his hand in the cookie jar yet again. In Eddins' 2015 article, he hinted at Jones being snared in a nebulous quid pro quo with then Speaker Hubbard founded on an expectation of being rewarded for aiding him in his darkest hour of need. Of course, there is the small matter of Jones receiving a nearly 25% increase to his salary in the wake of his Hubbard endorsement. Flashing forward to 2024, one can't help but wonder what the anticipated payoff is this time for picking winners and losers in the current election cycle. Stay tuned for more startling revelations, dear readers!
Comentarios