Constables Or No Constables?

The Corpus Christi Caller-Times has one of the better pieces I’ve seen in recent years concerning the debate on whether or not some counties need or should have constables.

In a fairly balanced article, the Caller-Times explores both sides of the issue,  but it seems to me some of the candidates they’ve quoted don’t quite understand the need for the constable’s post in a county:

Fred Ballenger, one of the Republican candidates in the sheriff’s primary, said ideally he’d like to see not only no deputy constables, but no deputy sheriffs and no police officers – or rather, he wouldn’t want them labeled as such.

“My opinion is that we need to go Metro Police,” Ballenger said. “Everything goes under one roof – sheriff’s department, police department – and there’s no difference. To do away with the constables, that’s the only way to do it.”

I know in some major metro areas, the concept of “metro police” has gained a lot of favor, but in Texas, it’s really not the way to go. For one thing, most counties are too spread-out with urban or suburban and rural areas encompassing parts of the counties to varying degrees.

Furthermore, I think the same argument against “metro police” is the same argument against consolidated county school districts, which today only exist in the most rural of Texas counties: little to no true local control, continuing disagreements over what entity (city or county, in the case of Metro Police) is in charge, and a general bureaucratic nightmare.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It