Is Morgan Ballis Fit for Sheriff?

Update September 28, 2024: This post has been edited to clarify, that my comments in section 1. b) pertain to a police report. I have added the words “according to the police report” and “allegedly” in section 1. b) to make crystal clear that I am writing about a police report. To further clarify this point, in the questions area of the same section, I have also added “If the allegations in the police report are true,” I also want to emphasize what I have written repeatedly in emails and texts, namely, that I take no joy in reporting this information.

In an effort to ensure that our community has the information necessary to ensure an informed vote, I am posting the following report. I had never heard of Morgan Ballis until April 30, 2024 when I met with him to learn more about him as I was hearing so much from my contacts. I was part of a small group of women who met him and then, about a week later, I attended the debate at the Community Campus sponsored by some local nonprofits. I mention this to explain that I have no history with Ballis, no axe to grind, and nothing to gain. I simply want county residents to be empowered to make an informed choice which necessitates the sharing of relevant information.

When a community selects a sheriff, residents want to be assured that the person under consideration is a principled, moral, honest, decent, law-abiding, and generally an upstanding member of the community. They also want to know that that candidate adheres to foundational principles that will lead him or her to defend and uphold the Idaho and US Constitutions as the law of the land. Members of the community don’t want to worry that the potential sheriff is a liar, a cheater, a chameleon, or a repeat offender. They want a trustworthy and principled individual to serve as sheriff as sheriff is the highest elected official in the county as well as the highest law enforcement officer and, as such, wields tremendous power.

In this report I will share what I have learned about Morgan Ballis, a candidate for Blaine County Sheriff, pose some questions, and let you assess whether he is fit to be our sheriff. First, I’ll share the outline of findings, then I’ll provide more information regarding each of the points. At the end of each section, I’ll pose pertinent questions that demand a response.

OUTLINE:

1. A 15-YEAR RAP SHEET OF CRIMINAL/ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2. A LIST OF HIGHLY IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIORS
3. PTSD (POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER)
4. EMBELLISHMENT OF MILITARY HONORS
5. PARTY SWITCHING/DISHONESTY
6. IDAHO ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS

1. A 15-YEAR RAP SHEET OF CRIMINAL/ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, Part I:

Rap sheet of more than 2 dozen cases/investigations/arrests spanning about 15 years that we know of divided into two parts: criminal actions and traffic violations.

a) The report shown in the image, obtained from the Pima, AZ County Sheriff’s office, lists 10 cases/incidents/investigations including reports coded as domestic violence, larceny(theft), and more. Ballis was twice arrested for larceny (theft) and once for suspicious activity. One incident has been redacted, in one Ballis was the reportee, and the remaining 8 entries are as coded. In addition, according to the Pima County, AZ records department, there are as many as 8 other cases that could not be released due to agreements between Arizona state agencies.

QUESTIONS:

• When did the incidents for which we cannot obtain records occur?
• Are they recent or long in the past?
• Around what types of crimes did they revolve?
• How much of this type of behavior is tolerable in a candidate for sheriff?

b) The domestic violence case relates to Ballis hitting his own two-year-old son across the face with excessive force for calling him “Morgan” instead of dad, then taking the boy from the mother’s home against his mother’s wishes and driving the toddler in his car without a car seat. His ex-wife exhibited reluctance to go near the car, even with an officer present, in order to retrieve the toddler from Ballis’ car once Ballis returned, but told the officer she was not afraid.

QUESTIONS:

• What kind of man hits a 2-year-old across the face for any reason let alone for calling him by his first name instead of ‘dad’?
• Why did Ballis’ ex-wife feel it necessary to attempt to block Ballis from taking the boy from the house? Was she afraid for her son?
• Why was she reluctant to retrieve the boy from Ballis’ car? Was she afraid of Ballis?
• Why did she call the police if, as she stated to the officer, she had nothing to fear?

A 15-YEAR RAP SHEET OF CRIMINAL/ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, Part II:

The second part of Ballis’ history pertains to other violations shown in the report attached:

Although this is publicly available information, in order to protect the privacy of all family members, contacts, and others named in this report, we have redacted the names, telephone numbers and addresses of all individuals including, Morgan Ballis. 

a) A 3-count DUI for Liquor/Drugs/Vapors which was dismissed by the City Attorney.

b) 10 traffic offenses including two coded as criminal, according to the report.

QUESTIONS:

The report shows that Ballis was fined or paid bail on 4 out of 5 offenses as a minor, however, from age 24 onward, 6 cases, including the DUI with 3 counts for Liquor, Drugs, and vapors were ALL dismissed.

• Why were all these cases dismissed?
• Did someone intervene?
• Who benefits from that kind of leniency in our society?

2. A LIST OF HIGHLY IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL BEHAVIORS:

a) Ballis disseminated an unverified anonymous letter about his primary opponent, Sheriff Steve Harkins. He texted the anonymous and unverified allegations to members of the community and told them to do what they want with it. Sheriff Harkins has stated the claims in the letter are lies.

Recently, a mailer about Ballis’ track record was sent to local voters and Ballis’ response has been to play victim and denounce smear campaigns, but it is Ballis who first attempted to falsely smear his opponent in the primary by spreading an anonymous and unverified letter around. Moreover, Ballis has not responded to the accusations which would be the appropriate and necessary response. If Ballis is concerned about negative campaign tactics, perhaps he should have practiced what he is now preaching.

QUESTIONS:

• Did Ballis violate the trust of voters by concealing his checkered history and background?
• Does disseminating anonymous and unverified information as a candidate reflect the character necessary to act professionally and ethically as sheriff?
• How can our community trust Ballis with confidential information when he sees fit to disseminate salacious unverified allegations to win a primary?
• Does Ballis know who wrote the smear piece about Sheriff Harkins, but is just playing coy?
• Does Ballis know whether the letter is false, but shared it anyway?

(N.B. While I do not name sources for this report, my sources are not anonymous and I verify every statement made or rely on publicly available information.)

b) At a public debate between Ballis and Sheriff Harkins, Ballis brought up facts and details regarding an open investigation involving the sexual assault of a minor. The Blaine County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) officer conducting the investigation had to intervene to ask Ballis to stop discussing the case as he was concerned Ballis might compromise the case. According to Sheriff Harkins, he also admonished Ballis for publicly discussing the open investigation.

QUESTIONS:

• Given Ballis’ lack of judgement regarding an ongoing investigation, how can the community be confident he will exercise good judgement under pressure as sheriff?
• Given Ballis’ pattern of behavior, how can valley residents be confident that Ballis is an ethical man who will conduct himself ethically while acting as sheriff?

3. PTSD (POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER):

As a preface to this next section, I want to make it very clear that I am in no way criticizing, condemning or attempting to sideline anyone who suffers from PTSD as it is a real and debilitating disorder in many individuals. However, our community is entitled to know of this disability, which Ballis touts in his public appearances, and to assess how serious his disability is and whether a candidate suffering from such a disorder is suitable for sheriff.

a) Ballis stated in an interview on KMTV that he has a 100% disability rating from the VA mostly due to PTSD resulting from his time in Iraq. While I thank him for his service, one must ask whether an individual suffering from PTSD is a suitable candidate for School Resource Officer let alone sheriff. According to the VA, a 70% PTSD rating causes significant levels of impairment, both occupationally and socially: “Occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.”

QUESTIONS:

• Is a candidate with a 100% disability mostly from PTSD an appropriate candidate for Sheriff or School Resource Officer?
• How will Ballis handle stress on the job or when dealing with volatile situations if he has PTSD?
• Is it appropriate for him to be dealing with firearms and training others in firearms safety?
• If Ballis’ PTSD is not the impairment he claims, why does he have disabled license plates on his vehicle and why does he publicly claim to be disabled?

4. EMBELLISHMENT OF MILITARY HONORS:

a) Under sworn testimony as an expert witness in the lawsuit Roe v. Critchfield, Ballis listed his military medals on his resume and under oath in a Declaration to the court as proof of his expertise.

The list Ballis provided (which he also shows on his LinkedIn page – image below) notes two Achievement Medals but his military record (also visible below) as shown in his DD-214 only lists one Achievement Medal. A representative at the US Department of Defense confirmed that Ballis only has one Achievement Medal and one Good Conduct Medal. He also confirmed that Ballis has some form of disciplinary action on his record as medals are never redacted. In an email, a representative from MilitaryPhony.com who reviewed Ballis’ record, echoed that Ballis’ record shows only one Achievement Medal.

b) Ballis also lists three Good Conduct Medals on the Roe v. Critchfield affidavit and on his LinkedIn page. However, on his military record only one Good Conduct Medal is shown. In reference to the Good Conduct Medal, the representative from MilitaryPhony.com stated, “They get one every three years,…but he could have been delayed entry and period commences before his report date for active duty. Also it could be time in the reserves if he had made any obligation. 11 years is an odd time. Seems like one enlistment was short.”

c) In the REMARKS section, Section 18, on his DD-214, his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, one sees “Good Conduct Medal Period Commences” and “B6” (indicating redacted information) next to it. According to the Navy and Marine Corps Medal Manual, a Good Conduct medal “period commences” after an offense meaning that there had been some form of punishment for bad conduct before a new period commenced. The DoD representative confirmed the redaction referred to a disciplinary action.

It is possible that there has been a clerical error and that Ballis has represented his military awards accurately in which case, all Ballis has to do is release the records to confirm his claim and I will gladly correct this report. However, if he did overstate his achievements, which seems the case at this point, this is a serious offense that carries heavy penalties for misrepresenting military awards received in order to obtain some benefit, such as being elected sheriff. If Ballis’ DD-214 is correct as shown, then Ballis committed perjury when he testified as an expert witness last year in 2023 in Roe v. Critchfield.

QUESTIONS:

• How many Achievement Awards and Good Conduct Medals did Ballis actually receive?
• Was Ballis reprimanded and for what bad conduct was the reprimand imposed?
• What was in the REMARKS section of Ballis’ DD-214 discharge from the Marines?
• Given the obvious public interest in verifying Ballis’ claims regarding his military record, will Ballis release the full DD-214 limiting redactions to sensitive information such as relations, social security numbers, addresses, etc. so that his claims can be verified and so the community can be apprised of the terms of his discharge and whether he completed his term of service?
• If he won’t, what is he hiding?
• If Ballis has, in fact, perjured himself while under oath while acting as expert in a lawsuit, what assurance does the public have that he will not lie or fabricate other evidence in any circumstance?
• If he has misrepresented his awards, is he not continuing his near lifelong pattern of dishonesty?

5. PARTY SWITCHING/DISHONESTY:

As I noted in a previous report I wrote, Ballis met with a small group of women including myself before the Democrat primary. During that meeting, he claimed that he had been a life-long Republican, emphasized his military service, and stated that he is running as a Democrat in order to have a chance to get elected in Blaine County, but one week later at a debate, Ballis stated he is the only “real Democrat” that has ever run against Sheriff Harkins. At the debate, he repeatedly recounted his track record and efforts to create an LGBTQ liaison officer at Hailey Police Department, his fight for Blaine County students to use bathrooms according to their gender identification, to “foster change,” and more.

QUESTIONS:

• Who is the real Morgan Ballis?
• How do voters reconcile Ballis’ wildly disparate claims or determine what beliefs and viewpoints would guide Ballis as sheriff?
• Is Ballis being honest with the community about who he is and what his objectives are?
• Why should anyone take him at his word when his word changes depending on his audience?

6. IDASRO AND HIS LEADERSHIP OF THE ORGANIZATION:

In March of 2024, Ballis claimed in a Facebook post (image below) that he had raised $100k during the first 8 months after he was appointed president of the Idaho Association of School Resource Officers in April of 2023. However, Ballis filed a 990-N for IDASRO, a form which is reserved for organizations that raise less than $50,000 per year (image below).

IDASRO has not posted any content since February of 2020 but there seems to have been a new website created in 2024. The first snapshot found in the Internet Archive was taken January 1, 2024, but when that date is clicked, “FORBIDDEN” is the message found. (Image below.) That same message was found when I clicked the two dates on which the Internet Archive crawled the website in May and June of 2024. The notes indicate the IDASRO website is being forwarded from another site. When I click on the physical address listed on the website, there are 7 organizations listed (see image below) at that address but not IDASRO. When I call the number listed on the website, the number is a Google number.

IDASRO’s (EIN 47-2094503) nonprofit status was revoked in March 2022 for not filing 990s 3 years in a row. IDASRO did not file a 990 for the years 2018-2022 inclusive. Nonprofit status was reinstated in 2023.

QUESTIONS:

• Did Ballis in fact raise $100,000 in 2023 as he claimed?
• If so, why did he file a 990-N which is limited to gross receipts of $50,000?
• If he did not raise $100,000 in 2023, why did he claim he did?
• If he was lying, doesn’t that reinforce a pattern of dishonesty?
• Does IDASRO actually operate as an organization? Does it have meetings, activities, bylaws, a board, and objectives?
• What exactly is Ballis president of?
• Has he really changed his ways or does this conduct reflect more of the same?

7. There are many other allegations too numerous to report, some of which were unverifiable, so I have left them out.

CONCLUSION:

While reading this report, one might notice that despite all the arrests, fines, and cases, Ballis does not appear to have been convicted. I cannot state for certain that he has never been convicted as so many incidents on his record have been withheld. Regardless, of whether he has or has not been convicted, it goes without saying that most normal, ethical, principled, law abiding people with decent judgement do not have dozens of interactions with law enforcement spanning their multiple decades. Everyone makes mistakes, but Ballis has a long track record of behavior, not an isolated incident or two during a short period of trouble. Moreover, even if Ballis claims to have reformed, should we take him at his word when he says one thing one week and another the next? And is this kind of history and conduct suitable for a sheriff? What person would want to trust their safety or that of their children to someone with this background? Further, why should the community trust Ballis to uphold the law, were he to be elected, given his laxity regarding laws and ethics in light of his long track record of offenses?

Of note, I am aware that a report regarding Ballis’ rap sheet and history was submitted to the Hailey Police Department (HPD), to Jim Foudy, the Blaine County Schools superintendent, to the City of Hailey, and to Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) at the end of May, 2024, but that no public mention of the report has been made by any of these entities or the individuals who represent them nor has any action been taken, to my knowledge. Equally worrying, this information was also submitted to the Idaho Mountain Express, the newspaper of record in Blaine County, prior to the primary in May, but the Idaho Mountain Express chose to withhold the information from the public.