County Sheriff Goes Rouge? ~ From The Columbia Gorge News 6/30/21

WHITE SALMON, WA — A statement released by Klickitat County Sheriff Bob Songer — which called for the arrest, detainment and recommendation for prosecution of governmental officials he unilaterally believes are acting outside the bounds of the constitution — drew push back from county commissioners, who said they and county employees felt threatened and intimidated by the messaging.

Posted on the Klickitat County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page and forwarded to local media organizations, Songer’s June 17 statement sent ripples in county circles.

It impacted the day-to-day operations of the county health department and weakened the feelings of security of many county residents who work in local government, said county commissioners, leaving the Board of County Commissioners to respond officially with a letter to the sheriff on the constitutionality and the impacts his outspoken politics has had on elected officials and county staff.

The Board of County Commissioners responded to the sheriff following a candid discussion last Tuesday by approving a written response condemning Songer’s public statement for invalidly interpreting laws, a duty not prescribed to him in his official role as sheriff, and for putting county staff’s safety and security at risk.

During the discussion, Board Chair Dave Sauter said upon examining the letter over and over, he concluded that the letter is not limited to focusing on the governor’s mandates on the COVID-19 emergency. “The more I read it, it upsets me more, because… that is a general statement about any bureaucrat or government official, mayor, commissioner, whoever, that is perceived by a single individual, namely the sheriff, to be violating somebody’s constitutional rights, (and) is subject to arrest and detainment.”

“That is a chilling thing to say,” Sauter said. “That is the path to authoritarian regimes.”

The letter from the board reads: “While we truly appreciate you and your dedication to the citizens of our great county and for your love and respect for the Constitution, we cannot sit by and say nothing regarding your statements that the board, county residents and county employees find threatening and intimidating.

“Your statements were construed as threatening and intimidating to elected officials and county employees,” the county staff-prepared letter read, which was signed by all three commissioners and sent to the sheriff. “Your comments implied the arrest, detention and recommended prosecution for following state mandates and laws that you may disagree with, without going through the court process and judicial system as deemed by the Constitution.

“We do live in a nation of laws bound by the Constitution; however, we cannot choose what parts of the Constitution we are going to follow on any given day,” the letter continued. “Our founders wrote the first, second, and third articles dealing with separation of powers. In doing so, they gave the power to determine what is or is not constitutional to the courts and whether we personally like a particular law, mandate, governor’s declaration, or if we personally think that it is unconstitutional, it is the courts that decide what is or is not constitutional.”

There was not much debate on the language used in the response letter as the board informally agreed to have staff revise and put forward a final version for approval. The commissioners were all in agreement that they needed to address the issue.

That the letter was peppered with flattery directed towards the official who tacitly threatened the authors of the letter as well as county employees and other elected officials with arrest was explained by Commissioner Dan Christopher, who wrote the first draft of the response. He said there were several reasons for the language: “1. (It) is out of respect for the office of the sheriff; 2. It does not do the citizens of the county any good to start a war … between elected officials; 3. The way it was written was respectful, yet provided our stance while trying to make sure (egos) did not get (too) hurt so that there was less possibility of retaliation or escalation; 4. It showed respect to the department and staff.”

The statement

Songer’s June 17 statement claims that the founding of the country was based in Christianity, and by that measure, “I have taken an oath before the ‘Supreme Judge of the Universe’ to keep the peace and to secure, defend and protect the people of this jurisdiction from threats to their liberties, their livelihoods, and the peaceable enjoyment of their property.”

The statement goes on to condemn Washington Governor Jay Inslee’s issuing of executive orders relating to the COVID-19 emergency, which closed down businesses, churches, schools, and denied “the people of this state their God-given and constitutionally protected rights to travel, to worship, to assemble, and to exercise personal autonomy respecting wearing face masks or other medical devices.”

Songer called such actions by the governor unconstitutional, and vowed to implement policies and procedures in place barring his office from enforcing or assisting “in the enforcement of any order, edict, mandate, proclamation, directive, regulation, etc., that violates the rights of the people,” including certain First and Second Amendment rights, as well as the right to travel and “the right to lawfully engage in business activities without interference by representatives of any government, or agency or agent thereof, when such interference is based (sic).”

It further puts any governmental official on notice that he may choose to arrest and detain them for performing duties prescribed to them under what he considers “unconstitutional orders, edicts, mandates, proclamations, directives, regulations, etc.

“Fidelity to my oath requires that I abstain from enforcing any edict or order from a governor, or an executive, which lacks constitutional authority,” Songer wrote. That point was rebutted by Prosecuting Attorney David Quesnel, who, during Tuesday’s discussion, pulled from the Washington state Constitution and state code to argue that the sheriff does not have the authority to determine the constitutional validity of a law, and that it forbids sheriffs from practicing law.

‘What you say has meaning’

While the sheriff often releases statements in platitudes, some county officials are worried that a literal interpretation of his letter could mean consequences for those who operate under orders handed down by the state, should the sheriff or his deputies choose to execute the policies laid out in the statement.

“Under the literal interpretation of his letter, I could be arrested and detained for prosecuting a felon or domestic abuser for having a firearm, because that interferes with his right to bear arms … I could be arrested and detained for prosecuting someone for driving on a suspended a license or under the influence of alcohol because that interferes with their right to travel,” Quesnel said during Tuesday’s discussion.

The sheriff’s statements also impacted county operations of the health department, who for the past 15 months has been working to alleviate the county of public health issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.