Terrell County Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland’s Facebook endorsement of a candidate for justice of the peace is raising questions about whether an elected official’s political advocacy crossed into the use of government resources prohibited under Texas election law.
Cleveland posted an endorsement of JoDale, a candidate for Terrell County justice of the peace, on a Facebook account titled “Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland.”
“Vote JoDale!” Cleveland wrote at the beginning of the post, which included a campaign graphic reading “Vote JoDale for Justice of the Peace Terrell County.”
Cleveland went on to describe his experience supervising the candidate when she worked as a deputy tax assessor-collector.
“I can speak firsthand to the kind of person and employee she is,” Cleveland wrote, praising her professionalism, work ethic and commitment to public service.
Elected officials generally are permitted to endorse candidates and engage in political speech in their personal capacities. The legal question raised by Cleveland’s post is not simply whether a sheriff can endorse a candidate. He can.
The more complicated question is whether any public resources were used to create, publish or distribute that endorsement.
Texas Election Code Section 255.003 prohibits an officer or employee of a political subdivision from knowingly spending or authorizing the spending of public funds for political advertising.
Texas Ethics Commission opinions have made clear that the concept extends beyond simply spending taxpayer money to purchase an advertisement. Government employees’ compensated work time, government facilities and government equipment can constitute public resources.
That raises several factual questions about Cleveland’s Facebook endorsement.
Among them are whether Cleveland used a county-owned or county-paid cellphone or computer to create or publish the post, whether he created or posted the endorsement while using his government office, whether county employees assisted in writing, designing, posting or managing the endorsement during compensated work time and whether county resources are ordinarily used to administer the Facebook account.
The use of a government office could be particularly significant.
In Ethics Advisory Opinion 550, the Texas Ethics Commission concluded that a public officer may not use a government office to create photographs, videos or other communications for political advertising. The commission said the prohibition applies to officers of political subdivisions, including counties.
The commission has also said government employees’ work time, facilities and equipment can constitute public resources for purposes of the prohibition.
The use of a county-paid cellphone could similarly raise questions, although the circumstances would matter. Texas ethics guidance has recognized that some incidental personal use of government telecommunications equipment may be permissible. Using government equipment specifically to create or distribute political advertising, however, presents a different issue.
Cleveland’s language also matters because the post is not simply an informational reference to an election or candidate.
“Vote JoDale!” is an explicit appeal for an electoral outcome.
The Texas Ethics Commission has identified advocacy as an important factor in determining whether a government communication constitutes political advertising. Cleveland’s post also includes a campaign graphic urging voters to support the candidate.
None of those circumstances, standing alone, establishes that Cleveland violated Texas law.
The central factual question is how the endorsement was created and distributed.
Even if Cleveland considers the “Sheriff Thaddeus Cleveland” Facebook account a personal page, that would not necessarily resolve the separate question of whether taxpayer-funded equipment, facilities or employee time were used to produce or publish political content.
The nature of the account itself could also warrant examination. The page identifies Cleveland by his elected office rather than simply by his name. If the account is routinely used to communicate official sheriff’s office information, is administered by county personnel or is maintained using county resources, its use for campaign advocacy could raise additional questions about the separation between Cleveland’s governmental and political activities.
Determining whether public resources were involved would require additional information, including who administers the Facebook account, what devices are used to access it, whether county employees perform social media duties for Cleveland, whether those employees have access to the page and whether political posts are created or published during compensated county work time.
Cleveland remains free to endorse candidates in his personal capacity.
The legal question raised by the “Vote JoDale!” post is whether the endorsement remained entirely personal — or whether any taxpayer-funded resources of Terrell County helped produce or distribute it.
