BY BRITTANY ST. JACQUES
Los Alamos

David Izraelevitz is running for sheriff on a singular platform: abolish the office entirely. Running for sheriff while planning it’s dissolution creates an inherent conflict. It asks voters to simultaneously support a candidate and consent to the removal of the very office for which they are voting.

The basic premise of democratic accountability is simple: if you run for a job, you intend to do the job.

If the sheriff’s office should be abolished, that argument should be made directly to voters—through a ballot initiative, public debate, and ultimately policy reform—not by subversion and electing someone whose primary goal is to render the office obsolete from the inside.

If Izraelevitz wants to abolish the office of sheriff, he doesn’t have to circumvent established democratic process. He can take the same steps that were taken 10 years ago, when Los Alamos voters were asked directly whether the sheriff’s office should exist. After months of debate and controversy, voters made a clear choice to retain the office, even in its reduced form. If Izraelevitz was so passionate about the dissolution of this office, why hasn’t he taken further action in the past decade?

Elections are about intent. Voters must consider whether a candidate is running to serve in a role or to bypass process to eliminate it. Because blurring that line doesn’t just create confusion, it erodes trust in the very system we rely on to govern ourselves. 

David Israelivitz has shown unbridled contempt for democratic process with his platform. Early voting is now open. When you go to the polls, vote for candidates who respect democratic process.