LITTLE ROCK — Once again, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette disappoints, this time in a recent editorial regarding constables.
Constables are provided for in the Arkansas Constitution in each of its incarnations from statehood on. There have been at least two attempts to get our constitution modified to eliminate them, but the will of the people has prevailed. The latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution is by reducing the number of townships within a county, and by so doing, reduce the number of constables. (The Constitution provides for one constable per township.)
This circumvention has notably occurred without apparent notice by the Democrat-Gazette. I can’t find where in the law the county judge or the quorum court has been given the authority to eliminate townships.
I rather suspect that that power is one the Legislature must keep for itself. As noted in the online Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and Culture, “the current constitution in 1874 was written at the end of Reconstruction and was drafted to protect the people of the state from the government by limiting its powers. In the numerous attempts to revise or update the document in more than a century since, those issues have been discussed both in the proceedings of the conventions and in the campaigns on the proposed documents, all of which have been defeated.”
When the Constitution of 1874 was written, constables were the main law enforcement within their respective townships, similar in concept to the current federal COPS grant program. The sheriffs mainly took care of the county courthouse and jail. The justices of the peace were the primary courts and administrators within their respective townships. The constables were the police power within the townships.
Government authority was thus divided. Police power was divided, with each township essentially electing its own police chief. Some now say that concentrating power in a few individuals is the best and most modern and efficient way for government to operate. Some would have us revert to being ruled by kings.
The office of constable is the only office provided for in our constitution that is not funded. Some constables do receive some reimbursement money, but the funds are minuscule with respect to the actual costs involved. In fact, the Legislature has, over time, eliminated any way for a constable to make money, short of that provided by the quorum court.
All monies that a constable earns must be turned over to the county general fund. So the constable gets no money. The only equipment that he gets is what he, himself, provides. Plus, he is denied the authority to have deputies. Yet, according to ACA 16-19-301: “Each constable shall be a conservator of the peace in his township and shall suppress all riots, affrays, fights, and unlawful assemblies, and shall keep the peace and cause offenders to be arrested and dealt with according to law.”
Big job in Pulaski County where the townships each occupy half the unincorporated parts of the county.
In addition to having no funds and no equipment and no deputies, the constable is also handicapped by the lack of cooperation from sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies. It is noteworthy that in Arkansas, only the sheriff and the constable are elected law enforcement; all others are hired. But while the sheriff is openly accepted, regardless of training or background, the constable is not accepted, and is refused any local training or help from local agencies.
At a time when many police agencies have trouble getting enough people to fill their ranks, they will not work with a constable, regardless of the training and background. Just as with the offices of attorney general, sheriffs, legislators and judges prior to Amendment 80, the will of the people is sufficient to hold the office.
When last we had active constables, they took prisoners to local jails, worked with city police and sheriffs, appeared before local and district judges, and generally comported themselves as recognized law enforcement.
The constables have not changed, best as I can tell. They have continued to serve as best as they have been allowed, under continuing constrained conditions. They are neither rural nor urban, though some would make them rural and old-fashioned, and relegate them to the woodshed. In fact they are as modern as Community Oriented Policing; as modern as elections.
The problem with constables is with politicians and legislators and with a constitution that was “drafted to protect the people of the state from the government by limiting its powers.”
Some people have said that if elected they would not serve. I don’t see where constables have the authority to refuse to act in their capacity as constables. I do, however, see that quorum courts have the authority to refuse to fund constables and thereby, in effect, say to constables: “You need not act.”
———◊———
Rick Scott is constable for Hill Township in Pulaski County.
Editorial, Pages 11 on 11/26/2012