The ACLU probably won't get involved if the sheriff (and I suspect he is) is an elected official. The ACLU's basic approach is to pick its cases carefully, selecting for those with precedent potential, because they don't have as much money as their opponents seem to think. They expect that, as they fight for the Bill of Rights in court, Americans generally are obliged to use the rest of the Constitution to correct civil society through more normal means. If the sheriff can be removed from office by electoral defeat, that's the best way to do it. The ACLU would be the first to say so.

To use elections to fix things requires a lot of work and a lot of time. People have to find their natural allies, and their unnatural ones. (Rule of coalitions: "If you're comfortable with everyone at the table, your coalition is too small.") The issues must be kept before the public, which can make life very boring for those tending the fire: they must eat, drink, and breathe the issues. A suitable opposition candidate must be found, which means that many must be vetted, and several must be approached. And there's the fundraising, because even a grass-roots campaign must do mailings and canvassings and data entry and have public meetings, which must be advertized.

You have felt the initial rush of being on the leading edge of an issue, and doing something to remedy an injustice. Imagine having to keep that up, times 10, for two to three years. It's tiring. But ultimately, using elections to change the power structure not only empowers the activist, but empowers all the citizens who choose to vote as a result of that activism, whether they vote for change or for the status quo. And whoever loses, there will always be another election.

Court action is a faster way to get results, and a very good way to deal with immediate crisis or ongoing government actions that result in egregious harm to citizens and other humans, but it's not transformative in the best sense because it doesn't require the people to think and decide. Only a small group of judges has to do that. Elections and the political activities preceding them are like putting the body politic on a weight-loss program; legal action is liposuction. The latter provides instant transformation without much effort, but it can be dangerous and doesn't bestow the kind of discipline and effort that make the change more likely to be permanent.