BY JAMES WERNICKE
Los Alamos
Los Alamos County’s FY27 budget is $349 million financed primarily by the community’s largest employer and taxpayer. The Sheriff’s Office makes up 0.02% of the budget — so modest that one resident described the $8,000 annual salary as “background dust”. That same budget gave the Council a 58% salary increase and the County Manager’s office a 26% budget increase paid for in part by GRT rate hikes. That burden falls hardest on local small businesses that the county’s own commissioned survey found 77% of residents identify as a top priority for improvement. In a community with that degree of economic concentration and incentive structure, should the case for an independent elected check on local government be stronger or weaker?
David Izraelevitz is a longtime public servant who has been admirably transparent about running for sheriff explicitly to abolish the office he seeks. His arguments deserve a response.
Izraelevitz served on the County Council from 2012 to 2022, and that Council was the one that systematically dismantled the office he now seeks. In May 2016, the Council voted to transfer process service and lien enforcement from the Sheriff to the Police Department, then voted 4-3 to place abolition on the November ballot. Izraelevitz was part of that Council for both votes. When voters rejected abolition and Sheriff Lucero sued over the County’s continued encroachments, Izraelevitz — by then Council Chair — publicly welcomed the court ruling restraining the Sheriff. He now describes the office as a do-nothing position. The conditions that made it one were created, in part, on his watch. Sheriff Lucero alleged that the Council’s action followed his inquiry into a County official’s conduct. Whether or not that account is complete, the timing is a matter of public record.
The “professionals only” argument is circular. Police staff have their training and resources precisely because the Council stripped the Sheriff of duties and resources over a decade, including during Izraelevitz’s own tenure. The office was defunded until it could not function, and is now offered as evidence that it does not function.
The County is not an institution that benefits from less oversight. When three officers raised concerns that a fellow officer posed a danger to the community, the County fired one, forced out another, and subjected the third to a hostile work environment. They filed a whistleblower suit in 2014. Two years later, the County settled for $2 million, rescinded the termination, and expunged the disciplinary records. The officers’ attorney called on County officials to reassess how they govern. That settlement came just months before the Council voted to strip the Sheriff’s remaining duties.
An appointed police chief is not a substitute for an elected sheriff. A Council accountable to voters is exactly what democratic government requires for setting policy, raising revenue, and managing public services. That chain is appropriate for running utilities and maintaining roads. When the police chief serves at the pleasure of the County manager who serves at the pleasure of the Council, who polices the conduct of the people at the top? An elected sheriff — answerable directly to voters at every election cycle — is the one break in that chain that democratic theory has always recognized as necessary.
The lawsuits were the system working. Both Sheriffs Vaughn and Lucero went to court because the Council exceeded its authority — and courts agreed the office could not be eliminated through defunding. That constitutional officers challenged legislative overreach is not dysfunction. That the County spent money defending its own encroachment is not an argument against the sheriff, but rather an argument for the Council to stop encroaching.
The Treasurer analogy fails. Abolishing a bookkeeper requires no independent check on power. Abolishing the only elected law enforcement officer removes the last direct democratic accountability over policing entirely. The whistleblower case shows exactly what that looks like in practice.
The constitutional framers put the sheriff on the ballot for a reason. Voters should be very sure they no longer need that reason before they vote it away.
Antonio Maggiore served on the County Council from 2017 to 2020, overlapping with Izraelevitz during the years the Lucero litigation was playing out. He watched those same institutional dynamics from the inside and reached the opposite conclusion. Former Councilor Katrina Martin, who served alongside Antonio Maggiore, describes him as someone who showed great integrity, was not afraid to ask difficult questions, and is genuinely motivated by public service rather than personal agenda. Two candidates looked at the same Council, the same history, and the same office. One concluded the sheriff should be abolished. The other is running to preserve it.
Vote in the Democratic primary on or before June 2.
New Mexico’s new semi-open primary law means this race is open to more voters than just registered Democrats. If you are registered Declined to State (DTS), you can now request a ballot to the primary of your choice. If you are registered with a minor party, you can change to DTS using same-day registration in person throughout early voting and on election day.
Editor’s note: The Los Alamos Reporter has not fact-checked the contents of this letter.