Sheriff Cole's Escape Hatch

[XLFD]

Mason County Sheriff Kim Cole is poised to be reelected for the third time, having no opposing candidates in either the primary or general election this year, nevertheless his campaigning actions have come under scrutiny by some locals with several appearances with the Republican presidential candidate and his recent political advertisement against Michigan Senate Candidate Elissa Slotkin for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC):

If one focuses strictly on the content of the ad, it does not seem to be incendiary, looking at her voting record in the house on key border security issues and undeservedly giving taxpayer money to illegals and prisoners (like serial-fondler Larry Nassar).  For each claim the NRSC provides her roll call vote, so you can find that she voted for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) which Nassar did take advantage of (just like a fledgling tumbler) and were used by illegal aliens for a variety of purposes.  Slotkin did vote against 2023's "Secure the Border Act", but it should be noted that all of her 210 fellow Democrats voting in the house did the same.

One can accept what Sheriff Cole says as true, or as nuanced half-truths, but you also notice a few things in this advertisement which is not funded by her opponent in the general election (Mike Rogers) but by a Republican committee.  He is wearing his official uniform and driving one of the Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) cars down the street.  They use the title of his office and his jurisdiction in the subtitles of the ad.

The question arises about whether he should be using these things in what is essentially a negative political ad against a senate candidate.  If you haven't heard of the Hatch Act, it's a federal law whose purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.​​​​ ​​ It affects state and local agencies that receive any federal funding, like the MCSO does.

This ad could lead one to believe the Hatch Act has been violated, but like the sheriff's statements, nuances exist that point otherwise.  This overview of the Hatch Act by the Federal Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) highlighting sheriffs indicates why this isn't a simple judgment to claim this violates the Hatch Act.  it first indicates in the second paragraph:

"State and local employees who are covered by the Hatch Act are prohibited from using their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election or a nomination for office... OSC generally concludes that state and local employees violate the Hatch Act when they use their official titles, or otherwise trade on the influence of their positions by, for example, wearing their official uniforms, while engaged in political activity."

But it isn't that easy to call the sheriff out for Hatch Act violations for this guidance indicates that sheriffs have some leeway in their politicking:

"OSC reasoned that [sheriffs] would not violate the Hatch Act by wearing their uniforms or using their titles while campaigning for reelection... If these [sheriffs] are permitted to use their official titles in their own partisan campaigns, OSC can identify no unique harm that would result if they do the same when endorsing other partisan candidates... Therefore, it does not appear that an elected official’s use of his title when endorsing a partisan candidate would violate the Hatch Act. In the case of a sheriff, wearing his uniform while campaigning for another candidate also would be permissible."

Thus, wearing his uniform, flashing his title or driving his sheriff car does not appear to be a violation of the Hatch Act, as it applies to sheriffs, nor does his appearance at Trump campaign events, providing he is otherwise in compliance by not using public resources and personnel under his charge in doing so.  

In similar manner, no state election law appears to have been broken by this advertisement.  The closest being MCL 169.257 which suggests, prima facie, that nothing improper happened in making this advertisement.  This University of Michigan factoid further develops what is and what isn't violations of that section, and this ad appears to fall in the latter.  

Our advice to the sheriff (and other ambitious officials) would be to be mindful of the Hatch Act and this Michigan version when campaigning for or against candidates and causes, and save all receipts that show you are not using public monies in any of the personal political aspirations that you tackle.

[AnxiousGuy]

I think sheriff Cole could use his national platform to talk about real issues in our area. I read a statistic that said 1 in every 4 kids aged 15 in Mason county have tried Meth. That happened on his watch, not Elizabeth Slokin. Probably better to focus on his own track record.

[dowland]

We are fortune to have such a " committed sheriff" who stood by the Michigan constitution and not the dictator governor during the COVID lock downs. He is the hardest working person that I know.I went to the Manistee tea party meeting to listen to him talk and give a in depth slide show  about the boarder which he visited and he went over to Israel to. Wow's. It was eye opening. The drug cartel is already in Oceana county. Best we wake UP! evil is coming. We need this type of leadership that actually does the walk and not just the talk. If you ask around in law enforcement circles you will find out that Mason County is 1 stop the  outside drug dealers and the child pers try to avoid because of our strong law enforcement .That's  because we have a dedicated sheriff who has the community best interest. I truly believe he only sleeps  couple hrs a night and know he is 24/7.Thank you , sheriff Kim Cole

[XLFD]

Both your comment and Anxious Guys' say roughly the same thing but with a different perspective/conclusion.  AG says that Cole is not focusing on the small stuff, Dowland says he is focusing on the big picture which is more important than the small stuff.  I've heard about and seen pictures of the sheriff's trips down to the border, Israel, and Washington DC, and it's clear his sights are set on bigger things.  Look for him to have a position in a Trump administration, at 60 he would be fine serving four years or more as someone who could spearhead correcting the situation at the border and deporting the bad guys.

Mark my words, if Trump does win, and for self-interest and self-preservation the majority of voters should make this choice, Sheriff Cole will be kicked into the national spotlight along with some of these other sheriffs that will shoulder all the grief they are bound to get.  If that happens, I hope Sheriff Cole rises to the occasion and loses some of the failures of character I have witnesses and listened to (from multiple reputable sources) over the last few years.  If he doesn't change in that respect, he will become a liability to the administration he's part of.