Fired for Lying, Then Tried to Rewrite Police Transparency

Let’s put something back on the table, because the passage of time does not erase what happened. Anthony Kern, then a Republican member of the Arizona House, had a professional history that should have raised serious red flags for anyone who cares about law-and-order principles. Instead of being sidelined, he stayed in elected office and pushed legislation that would have weakened transparency.

Here are the facts that too many people have forgotten. In 2014, Kern was fired from the El Mirage Police Department for lying to a supervisor about losing a city-issued tablet. That alone would concern any conservative who believes police officers should be held to the highest standards of honesty. The misconduct was serious enough to land Kern on the Brady List, the database of officers with credibility issues that can undermine criminal cases.

Then look at what happened next. While serving as a state legislator, Kern sponsored a bill that would have reduced public disclosure requirements for certain law enforcement officers. The proposal would have made it harder for the public to know which officers had credibility problems or past misconduct. In plain terms, a former officer fired for dishonesty tried to change the law in a way that would obscure the very kind of misconduct he was disciplined for.

Anyone who cares about accountability should pause on that. A person removed from a police force for lying should not be writing legislation that protects officers with credibility problems from scrutiny. Conservatives have long argued that public trust in law enforcement is built on high standards and personal responsibility. That argument falls apart when lawmakers who failed those standards try to rewrite the rulebook to protect themselves and others like them.

Some may dismiss this as “old news.” It is anything but. When public officials begin treating transparency laws as obstacles to get around rather than tools to uphold, the entire justice system suffers. When politicial leaders with discipline histories work to make their past less visible, voters need to ask who they are serving: the public or themselves.