Joe Arpaio is no longer “America’s toughest sheriff”

By J.D. | PHOENIX, ARIZONA

IT IS hard to imagine Maricopa County, Arizona, without Joe Arpaio. The flamboyant, tough-talking sheriff reigned over the county, which includes the sprawling Phoenix metropolitan area, for 24 years. Sheriff Joe, as he was often called, became known around the world for his unusual policies and aggressive self-promotion: dressing his inmates in pink underwear and housing them in tents in Arizona’s sweltering desert heat; using the power of his office to round up illegal immigrants.

But “America’s toughest sheriff”, as he called himself, is no longer in the job. On January 4th, Paul Penzone, a Democrat, was sworn in as the new sheriff. In elections in November, voters in the heavily Republican county opted overwhelmingly against giving 84-year-old Mr Arpaio a seventh term in office and chose Mr Penzone, a former Phoenix police officer.

For years, Mr Arpaio seemed invincible. To the chagrin of his many critics, he seemed to remain a hero in Maricopa County, no matter how much trouble he faced. He had an uncanny instinct for policies that appealed to voters, with his tough-on-crime doctrine, his fights against animal cruelty and, later in his tenure, his commitment to using the power of the sheriff’s office to combat illegal immigration.

Critics alleged that he was more interested in publicity than law enforcement. He faced years’ worth of accusations of cruelty in his jails and politically motivated prosecutions. The crime suppression sweeps and workplace raids he used to round up illegal immigrants for years elicited allegations of racial profiling. A federal judge reached the same conclusion in 2013, ordering a halt to much of Mr Arpaio’s immigration enforcement routine.

None of that seemed to matter much to Mr Arpaio or his supporters. The sheriff thrived on controversy and criticism, portraying himself as being under siege from powerful interests that wanted him to go easier on criminals and illegal immigrants. He defiantly boasted that he would never back down. And the voters rewarded him for it year after year.

Perhaps the greatest factor in Mr Arpaio’s defeat was a decision by federal prosecutors to file criminal contempt of court charges against him over his refusal to comply with the order that his office halt discriminatory practices in its crackdowns against illegal immigrants. The threat of contempt charges had loomed over him for two years; the charges finally came in October, just weeks before the election.

Maricopa County Democrats long predicted that a surge in Latino voting would eventually unseat Mr Arpaio. But it appears that many of the Republican voters who had traditionally supported Mr Arpaio brought about his defeat. According to a precinct-level analysis by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit organisation, support for Mr Arpaio in many heavily Republican areas had plummeted.

Though the contempt charge played an obvious role, there may be more to Mr Arpaio’s defeat than that. After years of political spectacles and lawsuits with multimillion-dollar payouts, some say Mr Arpaio simply wore out his welcome. Constantin Querard, a Republican campaign operative in the Phoenix area, said Mr Arpaio’s long tenure and the “media beating” he’d taken for years wearied his supporters. Mr Querard said many voters “didn’t know if he was right or if he was wrong, but I think they just wanted the noise to stop.” Other say that Mr Arpaio had become a parody of himself: using a tank for televised raids and holding a press conference to denounce Barack Obama’s birth certificate as a forgery. “What looked like a sincere policy effort grew into some sort of act, and that act grew into something that felt cartoonish and sideshow-like,” said Stan Barnes, a local lobbyist and former Republican state legislator.

Many view Mr Arpaio’s pivot to illegal immigration, which came after more than a decade in office, as a turning point. It raised him to new heights of popularity with his supporters, but also brought new notoriety, intensified his opposition and ultimately led to a years-long racial profiling lawsuit that ended with him facing contempt of court charges. Critics accuse Mr Arpaio of diverting resources away from traditional duties of the sheriff’s office to focus on immigration enforcement.

Mr Arpaio scoffs at accusations that he had changed. “I haven’t ever stopped and cooled off for political reasons,” he said. “I know the illegal immigration has been a big, big controversial situation, not only here but across the nation and in foreign countries. But I didn’t back off. I had the authority to investigate and I did what I felt was right as the sheriff.” Mr. Arpaio points to “vicious” ads by George Soros, a financier, and the timing of the contempt charge as the driving forces behind his defeat. “I’m sure that didn’t help, especially with the media having a field day,” Mr Arpaio said.