Sheriff partisanship doesn’t appear to shape extremist violence in the United States

The political affiliation of elected sheriffs in the United States does not appear to influence the local incidence of extremist violence, according to a new study published in Political Research Quarterly. Drawing on over a decade of data, the study found no evidence that Republican or Democratic sheriffs differ in their impact on the frequency of politically motivated attacks by right-wing or left-wing extremists in the counties they serve.

The researcher behind the study, Steven C. Rosenzweig of Boston University, was motivated by growing concerns about political polarization, radicalization, and the rising incidence of extremist violence in the United States—particularly from far-right groups. Given previous evidence from countries in the Global South showing that elected officials’ party affiliations can influence violence levels, Rosenzweig set out to test whether a similar pattern holds in the Global North.

“I primarily study political violence in the Global South. Previous research (including my own) from countries such as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia has found that the partisanship of elected officials can affect the local incidence of political violence, depending on the identity of the violent actors and their victims, and their relationship to the relevant officials,” explained Rosenzweig, an assistant professor of political science and author of Voter Backlash and Elite Misperception.

“However, given the high levels of partisan polarization and radicalization on the American right, as well as the fact that the United States has a strange law enforcement institution—sheriffs—where leadership is selected in partisan elections, I began to wonder: might partisanship affect the incidence of political violence in the United States as well? In particular, might the partisanship of sheriffs affect the likelihood of right-wing or left-wing violence in the counties they oversee? Might this dynamic extend to a Global North democracy like the United States, especially given its somewhat unique political context?”

Unlike most law enforcement officials, sheriffs are elected directly by voters in partisan races, often in highly polarized political climates. They wield significant power and discretion, including decisions about arrests, detention, and cooperation with other law enforcement agencies. Some sheriffs have been publicly linked to far-right movements and have even appeared at events involving extremist rhetoric. These factors make U.S. sheriffs a plausible group through which partisan influences might shape law enforcement responses to violence.

To assess whether sheriffs’ partisanship affects political violence, Rosenzweig constructed a large dataset covering over 10,000 county-years across 37 states between 2004 and 2018. He matched partisan sheriff election results to incidents of extremist violence reported by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The incidents included any politically motivated acts of actual or threatened violence by non-state actors, with perpetrators classified as right-wing or left-wing based on their stated motives and affiliations.

Two main research strategies were used. First, a regression discontinuity design focused on “close-call” elections where the margin between candidates was narrow, providing a natural experiment for comparing counties that elected sheriffs from different parties. Second, a difference-in-differences analysis tracked counties over time where the sheriff’s partisan affiliation changed, allowing for broader inferences beyond tight races. Both methods found no statistically significant relationship between sheriff partisanship and the occurrence of extremist violence.

Even when narrowing the analysis to counties where sheriffs played a dominant law enforcement role or to counties with larger or smaller departments, the results held steady. Rosenzweig also tested for the possibility that the null results were due to weak statistical power, but equivalence testing showed that any partisan effect would have to be extremely small—so small that it would be unlikely to matter in real-world terms.

To better understand why partisanship had no measurable effect on violence, Rosenzweig explored several possible explanations. One is that sheriffs from both parties may genuinely agree that political violence should be prevented, regardless of ideology. Alternatively, even if sheriffs differ in their private views, the structure of American law enforcement may constrain them from acting on those preferences. Departments may be too bureaucratized or professionalized for an individual sheriff to exert significant influence over how extremist threats are addressed.

Another possible explanation involves electoral incentives. Voters, regardless of party, tend to oppose political violence. Competitive elections may pressure sheriffs to crack down on extremism across the board to avoid losing public support. However, Rosenzweig found limited support for this theory. Even in counties with uncompetitive sheriff elections, partisan affiliation still had no measurable effect on extremist violence.

Rosenzweig also examined whether sheriffs affiliated with far-right movements, such as the “constitutional sheriff” ideology, might be exceptions. Yet even in counties where such sheriffs held office, the incidence of right-wing violence was not significantly higher. This suggests that, while some sheriffs may hold extreme views, these do not necessarily translate into increased tolerance or encouragement of extremist violence at the local level.

“The main takeaway is that, at least in the period that I study (2007–2018), sheriffs’ partisanship does not affect the local incidence of extremist violence,” Rosenzweig told PsyPost. “Across multiple research designs and analyses, the lack of any such effect is consistent. I’m unable to identify a clear explanation for why such an effect exists in several Global South contexts but not the United States, but the results are reassuring.”

“Still, we should be cautious in extending the results to the current context, which includes the January 6th attack and its aftermath, the pardoning of its participants, and the further politicization of law enforcement and deterioration in the rule of law.”

The study also cannot fully explain why partisan differences in rhetoric and ideology do not lead to differences in enforcement outcomes. It is possible that institutional constraints, professional norms, or public pressure keep sheriffs from acting on partisan preferences, but more research is needed to identify the dominant mechanism.

Despite these open questions, the study provides one of the most rigorous tests to date of whether partisanship among elected law enforcement officials influences political violence in the United States. The answer, at least for now, appears to be no. Even in a highly polarized political environment, the sheriffs tasked with maintaining law and order seem to respond to extremist violence in largely similar ways, regardless of whether they wear a red or blue badge. Whether this remains true in the future is a question for ongoing research and public vigilance.

The study, “Partisan Law Enforcement and Extremist Violence: Evidence from U.S. Sheriffs,” was published on April 19, 2025.