We don’t fault anyone who harbors doubt, or even downright disdain about the state of things at the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office. A culture of retaliation and dishonesty has pervaded the office for years. While they may or may not have taken part in all of it, the two people running to be the next elected sheriff have worked in the office long enough to have been at least in some way affected by all the drama.
The retaliations and recriminations of longtime former sheriff Shane Nelson and the downright dishonesty of short-lived sheriff Kent Vander Kamp are enough to make any voter think twice about casting their vote in this race. However; rather than flinging up our hands, we as voters should be leaning in. The Deschutes County Sheriff has over 200,000 supervisors, and they are us. Opting not to take part in this election is opting to say that the past troubles are not worth our time to correct — and further, that they are not the public’s problem. Whoever you decide to vote for in this race, do it in the spirit of having skin in the game.
This is hands-down the hardest endorsement we have had to make in the November 2026 election. Through the reporting in this newspaper, and through our endorsement interview process, we have discovered mistakes made by both candidates. In quick summary, candidate James “Mac” McLaughlin was found by an independent investigator to be guilty of failing to file a report containing potentially unflattering information about his colleague, following a controversial SWAT raid. He’s also known to have registered as a Democrat just ahead of his appeal to the local Democratic party to endorse him.
Interim sheriff (appointed by county commissioners after the fall of Vander Kamp) Ty Rupert is being investigated for allegedly making some mistakes in using County resources to campaign for the office of sheriff.
None of these are actions worthy of praise — and were we living in a county that has not gone through what it has gone through in recent years, these actions would very likely not have the weight they have now. Were we not in an election, McLaughlin would likely have gotten a slap on the wrist for his actions following the SWAT raid, rather than facing termination.
These are two candidates, both with records of military service followed by long stints at the sheriff’s office, who are inheriting a community that is justifiably distrustful. Mistakes aside, we find them both to be upstanding people with the backgrounds and experience to be decent leaders. Rupert naturally has the upper hand, being the one already serving. So, the question for our board became: In light of the information we know about the candidates, their backgrounds and their decision-making on the job, does McLaughlin deserve to be promoted, over Rupert?
While it’s true that the investigator looking into the circumstances of the SWAT raid found several of the claims against McLaughlin to be unfounded, that investigator did find cause to elevate the inquiry on at least one major point. Failing to file a report that might make one’s self and one’s colleague look bad was a poor decision, and in regular circumstances, may not be a fire-able offense. But a candidate running for the County’s highest office needs to keep his nose clean, even when he thinks the cameras are not running and no one else will find out.
We don’t believe McLaughlin should be fired for such a thing — nor should he be promoted. But we should also watch how Rupert handles this delicate matter with his subordinate, because it could speak to whether he’s really committed to a change of culture at the office.
During our interview with the candidates, we asked Rupert plainly whether he will be the one to decide whether to fire McLaughlin once the final report is out on the matter. The decision is Rupert’s to make — unless he decides to let it be the decision of County Administrator Nick Lelack, he said. If Rupert wants to show that this is not a political decision, he should commit now, ahead of the election, to letting Lelack be the one to fire McLaughlin (or not).
Both candidates indicated support for either a county ombudsman or a citizens’ review board to add some oversight to the office; Rupert and McLaughlin should be sure to follow through on those important initiatives.
Rupert has made quite a show of his desire to cut expenses at the sheriff’s office, and to be a good steward of county resources. These are positive moves. How he handles the results of the investigation into McLauglin is the next step in a long quest to show voters that retaliation and politicking are behind us at the sheriff’s office.
This is a tough call for voters, as both candidates have a long tenure of service to their community, but we believe Rupert is the better choice in this election.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
