Santa Cruz County’s next sheriff will serve 4 years before going before voters

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Jim Hart’s announcement earlier this month that he will step down in December puts the question of his replacement before the county board of supervisors, and support is swelling for Hart’s heir apparent, Undersheriff Chris Clark. The job is an elected position that enjoys near-complete autonomy, and carries vast power over law enforcement, the jail, and public health and safety response. But Clark would serve in the role as an appointee for four years before having to face voters.

Three supervisors — Zach Friend, Bruce McPherson and Felipe Hernandez — have already expressed some degree of support for Clark, as has the county’s Deputy Sheriffs’ Association. Although the board has until Hart’s departure in December to make the appointment, Friend and McPherson have put the decision on Tuesday’s agenda for a vote, just weeks after Hart’s announcement. 

If Clark is selected, it will mark the third time in the past four sheriff tenures that the incumbent has retired mid-term and the supervisors appointed his chosen replacement to finish out the term. In each of those cases, the interim sheriff went on to run unopposed in the following election, and coasted to a full, four-year term.

Clark’s potential appointment is unusual, however, because of a recent change in California law. When prior sergeants rose to interim sheriff, they did so with less than two years remaining in their predecessor’s term. If the supervisors appoint Clark, he will be the first Santa Cruz County sheriff in at least the past 50 years — and possibly ever — to earn a full, four-year term without an election. 

In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 759, which realigned all sheriff and district attorney seats in the state with the presidential election cycle. For counties including Santa Cruz, which held sheriff races during the midterms, this meant Hart, elected during the June 2022 primary, would serve a six-year term expiring in December 2028. 

Clark has earned respect from his bosses, colleagues, and even some activists. However, sheriffs are granted broad power and autonomy in part because they are directly elected by voters. Although they control the sheriff’s budget, the board of supervisors cannot fire a sheriff under any circumstances, even in situations such as this, where they, instead of voters, appoint the role. Jason Hoppin, a county spokesperson, said that the supervisors “retain no authority over an appointment, nor can they reverse the decision.”

For Clark to earn a full, four-year term without so much as a public interview or public input, let alone a campaign or election, has led some to call the process anti-democratic. 

Lee Brokaw, who chairs the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter’s police and transparency committee, but was speaking only for himself, said the public’s agreement on the sheriff question is critical to accountability. 

“The course we always hear from the sheriff is that they don’t need a citizens’ oversight committee or anyone to watch over them because they are publicly elected, and the public can just kick them out of office,” Brokaw said. “This situation just makes that refrain sound like horses–t.” 

Sheriff’s choice

Despite his frustrations, Brokaw said “this is the way it’s always done.” 

When former Sheriff Mark Tracy announced his retirement in 2005, the supervisors listened when he said he wanted Steve Robbins to finish the term. When Robbins announced his mid-term retirement in 2009, the supervisors appointed Robbins-endorsed Phil Wowak to take over. Hart’s path to the seat slightly deviated from this trend. When Wowak abruptly announced that he would not seek reelection when his term expired in 2014, and in the same breath endorsed Hart to succeed him, he did so just days before the primary election’s filing deadline. In the only contested sheriff’s race in the past 30 years, Hart ended up facing two challengers, but trounced the field with more than 64% of the vote. He ran unopposed in 2018 and 2022. 

In an interview with Lookout earlier this month, Hart, 59, said he initially planned to serve out his full, four-year term as his last. However, after the realignment, he said knew he would not serve all six years, and figured whether he left after two years or four years, it would still be mid-term. He also appeared to endorse the succession trend of sheriffs in Santa Cruz County. 

“Look at our track record of stability versus some other counties in the area. We have a very stable office and an office with a good reputation,” Hart said. “If you look at the last 30 years, whatever’s occurring here is working.”

Yet, the sheriff’s office has recently been under fire for its handling conditions at the county jail, the mental health care of inmates, and a policy that has prohibited inmates’ families from visiting and spending time in the same room. That’s to say nothing of the fentanyl crisis and the challenges of recruitment and retention of officers. 

California law says a mid-term sheriff vacancy “shall” be filled through appointment by the board of supervisors. Santa Cruz County Clerk Tricia Webber told Lookout that the county’s legal team has interpreted the language to mean no special election can be called even if supervisors wanted to go that route. Asked about that interpretation of the law, the California Secretary of State’s office referred Lookout back to the county clerk. 

Responding to an inquiry from Lookout, the Attorney General’s Office appeared to agree that the issue was not a matter of black-and-white fact. “We do not offer legal advice,” a representative from the office said. 

Peter Gelblum, board chair of the local ACLU, but speaking for himself, said the process appeared questionable on its face. 

“My initial reaction is, this is not terribly democratic,” Gelblum said. “But then you have to ask, what’s the alternative? The law requires an appointment. The only fairer way to do it is for Hart to not endorse anyone and have people step up to compete for the appointment.” 

However, Gelblum said the problem is not necessarily with Hart or Clark, but with the law that doesn’t seem to make room for a special election. 

“The board of supervisors, in all my time I’ve lived here [15 years], I’ve never seen them do anything contrary to what the sheriff asks them to do, on any topic at all,” Gelblum said. “It’s as close to a guarantee that you can get that Clark is going to be appointed. Clark seems like a decent guy.” 

Support swells for Clark

Earlier this week, McPherson told Lookout he and Friend were writing a letter urging the board to support Clark’s appointment. 

“He’s been a tremendous trooper for Sheriff Hart, and his colleagues think highly of him,” McPherson said. “I think we should appoint Chris Clark.” 

The chair of the board of supervisors, Justin Cummings, said the board will vote next week on Clark’s appointment. 

Friend, who said Clark is “unequivocally the best person to take the role,” said voters will ultimately have a say in 2028, and emphasized that while there is a power of incumbency, there also can be a “baggage of incumbency” if the sheriff’s office takes a wayward direction. 

“The board of supervisors are elected by voters for a wide variety of responsibilities, and this [appointing an interim sheriff] happens to be one of our duties, so there is still a say from voters in the process even if it doesn’t feel direct,” Friend said. 

Hernandez told Lookout he was swayed by an Aug. 14 letter the board of supervisors received from Ethan Rumrill, president of the local labor union Santa Cruz County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, supporting Clark’s appointment. 

“[Clark] has shown a willingness to listen to others and the competence to lead,” Rumrill wrote. “We of the DSA believe that [Clark] is the best person to lead the sheriff’s office going forward. We trust that he will continue to represent his office with distinction and serve the community with the firmness and compassion that the position requires and the community expects.”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.