In the upcoming election on November 2, 2010, voters will be asked to decide whether ex-felons can serve as sheriffs.  Such a change will require an amendment to the state constitution.

The knee-jerk response would be to say of course ex-felons shouldn’t serve as sheriffs.  However, this is a question that deserves a lot more attention than a knee-jerk response.

1) As a general matter, any change to the state constitution should be made rarely, and only in matters of significant concern.  There has not been one instance, at least according to sheriffs who have been interviewed, where a sheriff with a felony has won an election.  This hardly constitutes a problem.

2) Such an amendment is insulting to future voters.  The public is more than capable of deciding whether someone should serve as a sheriff.  An outright ban may prevent a legitimately qualified person with wide support from seeking the position.  If in the event “the ax-murderer” is released from prison and runs for sheriff, the public is bright enough to vote against that candidate.

3) The amendment is overbroad and covers all ex-felons.  As we saw in Britt v. North Carolina, in which a non-violent ex-felon was unconstitutionally prohibited from possessing a firearm, not all ex-felons pose the same level of risk.  A non-violent ex-felon who is a model citizen for decades could pose less of a risk than someone who never committed a crime?there is no rational basis for such a prohibition.

4) We often claim that this country (and state) believes in second chances?but this type of ban certainly demonstrates the opposite.

5) There are implications as it relates to firearm possession when an ex-felon runs for sheriff.  An ex-felon in North Carolina may not be able to possess a firearm, and this would apply to sheriffs.  However, it also is not necessarily true that a sheriff must possess a firearm for the position?reasonable restrictions on firearm possession may be an appropriate action and make more sense than a blanket constitutional ban on any ex-felon from serving as sheriff.

Further, passing a bad law to compensate for an even worse law (the firearm ban) is the opposite of what needs to be done.  The firearm law needs to be changed back to the way it used to be not that long ago to make it much easier for ex-felons to exercise their constitutional rights to bear arms.

Conclusion: The proposed ban simply goes too far.  Before rushing into such a drastic action for a non-problem, the legislature should look into what other steps could be taken to address any potential risks that may exist.