Bob hates Darren, and there is a bill being considered by the state Legislature to codify that fact. More specifically, state Rep. Bob Marshall, D-highlands Ranch, has a grudge against Douglas County Sheriff Darren Weekly, a Republican, and he intends to punish him with vengeance legislation that will discriminate against all Colorado sheriffs. HB23

1206 is Marshall’s attempt to seek revenge on a Douglas County Sheriff’s Office of which he has been critical ever since it failed to jail the Douglas County School Board at his request.

The hypocrisy of the bill — which bars sheriffs from political activities including endorsements — is evident from its first lines. After declaring the obvious truism that “law enforcement must be conducted in an impartial and apolitical manner” and decrying “even the appearance of partisan activity,” Marshall excludes every single member of law enforcement from this grudge legislation except sheriffs. Also excluded from the dictates of Marshall’s malicious bill are the attorney general, district attorneys and coroners, each of whom is an elected law enforcement officer under Colorado law. Marshall offers no justification for this bizarre disparity.

The bill announces it is “to serve as a Colorado version of the ‘Hatch Act,’” a federal law that limits certain partisan political activities by federal and local government employees who work with federally funded program.

Ironically, the sheriff ’s office is covered by the Hatch Act, due to the office’s administration of federal funds. Marshall’s bill goes well beyond the federal Hatch Act.

This bill is also another state usurpation of local control. County sheriffs are subject to the laws and rules established by locally elected county commissioners. Here, Marshall’s bill reflects contempt for their decision making and strips from the ability to govern in this area. Meanwhile, the bill leaves untouched the ability for municipalities to regulate the conduct of their chiefs of police or other law enforcement officers. Marshall must think county government is too stupid or corrupt to manage itself.

One of the intended results of this begrudging bill is that our hyperpartisan Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, could endorse a political candidate — like Bob Marshall — and use his elected title to give the endorsement more credibility, but Sheriff Weekly could not endorse Marshall’s Republican opponent using the title “sheriff.”

The bill is drafted so poorly it states that “an employee of the sheriff’s office shall not …use public buildings … under exclusive control of law enforcement that are not regularly available to the general public.” That language is not anchored to political activities, but is an outright prohibition on the sheriff and sheriff’s deputies using the Sheriff’s Office. For anything, including their jobs. Period.

The bill prevents only the sheriff — no other law enforcement executive or employee — from using their “official position to exert any pressure on anyone to influence that person’s political views.” That language is so poorly drafted, it appears to prevent sheriffs from testifying before the legislature in uniform to “influence [a legislator’s] political view” on a specific bill. That prohibition does not extend to chiefs of police, the chief of state patrol, the AG — frankly, anyone else. Only sheriffs.

The bill also empowers “any person” to file an affidavit complaining about (only) sheriffs. There is no limitation as to residency, citizenship or geography. It is far more pernicious than allowing a politically active Boulderite to target sheriffs of more conservative counties. This misguided bill would allow anyone, anywhere — including Californians — to file affidavits with the DA. The bill would rob DAS of any discretion in investigating or prosecuting these claims. If “reasonable grounds” exist, the DA would be compelled to prosecute — not a crime (because it is not one) — but a civil violation.

To add insult to injury, the bill inexplicably grants to the AG “equal power with the district attorney” to prosecute these “violations,” unnecessarily expanding AG jurisdiction into areas of local control.

To subjugate sheriffs to his will, Marshall defines the sheriff as an “employee of the Sheriff’s Office,” which is as ridiculous as calling Marshall an employee of the legislature. Just like Marshall, sheriffs are elected by their respective populations. They are not “employees.”

Nonetheless, the bill creates a super punishment of dimiss[al] from the service of the county Sheriff’s Office” for any conviction. Any first-year law student would ask “who has the authority to dismiss the sheriff?” The answer is only voters. Not even a super majority of both houses of the Legislature can change that.

It is worth noting that the bipartisan County Sheriffs of Colorado oppose this bill. This is not about partisan politics, it is about bad policy.

With Colorado facing surging crime and victimization, one man has set his sights on evening the score with his local sheriff. Marshall should settle his beef at the ballot box, not by turning the law on its head with this discriminatory bill.

George Brauchler is the former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District. He also is an Owens Early Criminal Justice Fellow at the Common Sense Institute and president of the Advance Colorado Academy, which identifies, trains and connects conservative leaders in Colorado. He hosts “The George Brauchler Show” on 710KNUS Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow him on Twitter: @Georgebrauchler.