A Recent History of Sanctuary City and Bonding for Texas Sheriffs

After I came to Texas in the Autumn of 2016 I learned that there was a serious rancor ongoing concerning support for Sanctuary City status in Texas and what that entailed. As I understood it, there was a number of Texas Sheriffs that asserted their support for Sanctuary City requirements concerning reporting undocumented immigrants to federal immigration officials. Before it gets debased into purely racialized terms it is worth mentioning that not all of the Sheriffs who supported Sanctuary City laws in Texas at that time had Spanish surnames. There was, however, a specific altercation that had brewed between Governor Greg Abbott and Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez. In the beginning of 2017 the Governor stated that were Sheriff Hernandez to not relent on her support of Sanctuary City status, then funding to the county she represented would be cut. I did not know at the time what specific funding cuts were being threatened.

I learned that in late February of 2017 the Texas Legislature passed SB 4 concerning Sanctuary City status in Texas. This meant that the considerations regarding Sanctuary City status were officially taken out of the realm regarding the Governor and put into the hands of the Legislature. This is important when considering the implications around jurisdiction and immunity in performance of one’s duties as an elected official. Sheriffs ARE elected officials every bit as much as the Governor. However, under the laws of the State of Texas, Sheriffs are also obligated to qualify for two sureties which are signed over to the Governor. I was concerned that the Governor’s threats to cut off funding to counties wherein Sheriffs supported Sanctuary City status were actually violations against his role as the bondholder for Texas Sheriffs.

See, under the laws of Texas, the Attorney General is the bondholder for most other bonds--the bonds regarding Sheriffs are different than other law enforcement. Additionally, the bonds for Sheriffs are on their credit unlike police who are on the credit of the applicable political subdivision up to and including the state and the staff of a Sheriff’s office is on the Sheriff’s bond, which is different than in the case of a Constable.

The fiduciary role between the Governor and a Sheriff is also important in considerations of immunity. By law in Texas, a Sheriff is not permitted to make decisions on what is or is not law, but it is within his ministerial duty to determine HOW to apply the law. He cannot judge, but he can determine how to act on judgments. That is why Legislative jurisdiction in considerations of Sanctuary City is important.

I was concerned specifically about the fact that unlike other law enforcement Sheriffs are required to have two sureties. Is this because of the risk associated with Sheriff’s duties? As in one is a back-up of sorts in case there are hits against one? What happens to a Sheriff’s surety if he defies an order by the Governor to NOT enforce a specific law? What if he does this more than once? What if he refuses an order by the Governor regarding the implementation of a law AND he has to address concerns regarding a member of his staff involved in a death by shooting?

These were the concerns that were not addressed in 2017 when the questions regarding Sanctuary City came up in Texas. This was specifically important as at the time I was in Houston, TX. Houston’s Sheriff Ed Gonzalez was a man who prior to becoming Sheriff was both a former member of the Houston Police Department and a former member of Houston’s elected City Council. This means he would be eligible for benefits as a former employee of BOTH the City Council as an elected representative AND the Houston Police Department, including pension benefits and insurance. These experiences undoubtedly would have influenced what his credit was determined to be when he applied for and was awarded the sureties for his term as Sheriff. It was also to be considered in how he responded to the shooting death of a man named Johnny Hernandez in the parking lot of a restaurant by the spouse of an off-duty Sheriff’s deputy that would be on his bond.

After the death of Johnny Hernandez, Sheriff Gonzalez requested the intercession of the Department of Justice and the State of Texas Department of Public Safety to investigate the shooting and its implications. It also was at a very important time in the state-wide response to SB 4. Calling in outside support from law enforcement in regards to a shooting by one of his staff was one thing, but what happened to his participation in the movement of elected officials in the State of Texas that were supporting a particular political stance in regards to Sanctuary City laws?

Had anyone at the Department of Justice or the Texas Department of Public Safety actually spoken with me instead of using my efforts to report to them in some other scenario that as of yet I have received no response to I could well have shared other elements of my investigation concerning bonding for first responders and other municipal finance instruments. That would have occurred before the deaths of Houston Police Officer Steve Perez in August of 2017 and Dallas Police Officer Rogelio Santander in April of 2018. It would also have included my assessment of the relationship between the jurisdictional considerations for law enforcement and the bonding of first responders. It ALSO would have included my understanding of how a Texas law passed on Dec. 12, 2016 for later implementation regarding “waiver of a tax on the homestead of the spouse of a first responder killed in action” was actually...Unconstitutional.

Crouse for President