In prepping for his candidacy as Bucks County Sheriff, former Pennsylvania State trooper Mark Lomax expected that voters would examine his approaches on public safety and crimefighting. What he didn’t see coming, however, were queries about his leadership as a “constitutional sheriff.” Kimberly Kindy covered that question and its implications for The Washington Post.

The constitutional sheriff label emerged from several current law enforcement realities nationwide.

These include the autonomy inherent in becoming a county sheriff. The electorate chooses its chief law enforcement officers, not a borough or county council. Nationwide, that latitude has enabled several hot-button issues — mask mandates, gun ownership, qualified immunity — to seep into local politics.

Upping the ante are issues like the pandemic and the nation’s racial unrest. Their implications have voters peering into sheriff candidates’ policy planks related to vaccinations, critical race theory, and police defunding.

Absent political traction higher up on the food chain, supporters of the constitutional sheriff movement see it as the last line of defense against unwanted local, state, and federal regulations.

Both Lomax, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent Fred Harran generally avoided rhetoric related to the constitutional sheriff label.

They chose instead to focus on issues like diversity. Lomax seeks a more inclusive police force; Harran looks to improve law enforcement’s relationship with county minorities.

Lomax may be reexamining his platform this morning and moving ahead; he lost to Harran with only 47.1 percent of the votes, according to Yahoo News.

More on constitutional sheriffs is at The Washington Post.