WA Democrat Bill That Could Unseat Elected Sheriffs Permanently Blocked
Yesterday, a Thurston County Superior Court judge permanently blocked the central provisions of WA’s SB 5974, the new Democrat Sheriff Decertification Law that could have overridden voters’ choices of elected officials, ruling it unconstitutional. Under the law, an unelected hearing panel of a governor-appointed commission could have disqualified or removed a candidate who won an election.
The draconian law then would have the replacement appointed by the county legislative authority, or by the county executive — NOT chosen in a new election; and NOT through the voter recall process, which is the proper and normal way to remove a sheriff midterm.
Most importantly, for voters, the decision keeps the choice of sheriff with the county electorate rather than with criteria and an administrative veto written this legislative session.
Judge Christine Schaller held that the Democrat-controlled Legislature exceeded its authority over the constitutionally created office of county sheriff and set aside requirements that an elected sheriff be at least 25 years old, have 5 years of full-time law-enforcement experience, hold specified education or military-discharge credentials, have no felony or gross-misdemeanor convictions, and have no history of conduct that could trigger revocation of peace-officer certification.
She also invalidated the related WA State Patrol background-check process and the mechanism that would have let the Criminal Justice Training Commission effectively unseat a sheriff who failed those tests or lost certification. The court also struck down provisions tying certification to speech, associations, and vaguely defined “extremist” affiliations as overbroad and content-based.
The ruling leaves the new standards available for appointed chiefs and marshals, and it leaves in place limits on what non-certified people deputized by a sheriff may do. Gov. Ferguson signed the bill on April 1; a preliminary injunction placed by Schaller on April 29 was appealed by the state AG to the Supreme Court, but a court commissioner on May 5 left the temporary block in place, keeping the new rules from governing who could file and serve in office.
In April, the passage of the bill drew swift rebuke from several elected sheriffs, including Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders, saying:
“This is one of the most unpopular, hypocrisy-ridden bills ever passed. This bill undermines local elections, creates unnecessary mistrust toward our state government, spits in the face of our democratic process, and doesn’t solve any real problems facing Washingtonians while artificially creating new ones.”
The earlier cases came from the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association and candidates who would have been barred, as well as sheriffs in Spokane, Stevens, Ferry, and Pend Oreille counties, including Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels. The groups joined forces in opposition to the Democrats’ legislation, calling it “a direct attack on a constitutionally established office” and “an affront to the citizens who elect their Sheriffs.
Yesterday, Schaller held that the Legislature may set reasonable qualifications for sheriffs, but that this package was “so expansive that they cannot be upheld,” applied unevenly to sitting sheriffs, and improperly shifted eligibility judgments and removal—a judicial function—to the executive branch.
For potential problem sheriffs, removal before the end of a term remains with the existing voter recall process, not an appointed commission.
Schaller treated that design as beyond the Legislature’s power over a constitutional office: lawmakers may modernize training and certification for appointed leaders, but they may not make an elected sheriff’s tenure contingent on continuous approval by an unelected panel.
A formal court order outlining the ruling is expected after an October 23 presentation. To no surprise, the WA State AG’s office disagrees with the ruling and will appeal. Pending appeal, counties continue to choose sheriffs at the polls, and those sheriffs serve unless voters themselves recall them.
THE STATE AG NEEDS TO LET THIS GO:
It is clear to many that SB 5974 violates: WA State Constitution Art I, Sec 1 “All political power is inherent in the people” and Art XI, Sec 5 (County government; Sheriffs as Constitutional Officers elected by the people they serve in the county in which they reside.
Art I, Sec 3: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Art II, Sec 1 and related provisions on Elections/Recall: The bill adds decertification as a new cause for vacancy and circumvents the Constitutional Recall process (Art I, Sec 19 & 33) that protects the right to free and equal elections and outlines specific processes for removing elected officials, allowing removal without voter-initiated recall or impeachment-like proceedings.
Violates the U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment (Due Process Clause): Removal via administrative decertification without sufficient procedural safeguards (e.g., no automatic court review before vacancy) deprives the duly elected officeholder of due process and overrides electoral will.
Denies a Republican form of government Art IV, Sec 4 (Guarantee Clause), by allowing unelected bureaucrats to nullify voter-elected officials, interfering with local democratic processes. 10th Amendment (Powers Reserved to States/People): Principles that protect the will of the people from state overreach.
A Sheriff’s sworn duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and to faithfully and impartially perform the duties of the office according to the law. A sheriff’s statutory job is law enforcement, and as the chief executive officer and conservator of the peace of the county, the sheriff is charged with executing process and keeping the peace, even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
No appointed board should have the authority to override voters' will in fulfilling these important obligations!
This decision upholds the balance of powers envisioned by the state’s constitution. It signals a commitment to protecting free speech, fair elections, and the distinct role of sheriffs as directly accountable to the voters and their communities.
Share This Post...
