Why Washington’s Sheriff Bill Threatens Local Democracy and Public Accountability

By C. Michael Pickens, Pacific County Resident

For centuries, the office of sheriff has occupied a unique and important place in American government. The sheriff is not simply another law-enforcement bureaucrat. In most states, including Washington, the sheriff is directly elected by the people of the county, making the office one of the few law-enforcement positions accountable directly to voters rather than political appointees.

Washington’s Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974 threatens to fundamentally alter that relationship between citizens and their local law-enforcement leadership. By tying the continued service of an elected sheriff to certification controlled by the unelected Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC), the bill effectively gives a state-level administrative body the power to force an elected sheriff out of office through decertification. In practice, this means that voters may elect a sheriff, but a state commission, whose members are not elected by the public, could remove that sheriff from office by revoking their certification.

The office of sheriff is one of the oldest public institutions in the Anglo-American legal tradition. The role dates back to early medieval England, where the “shire-reeve” served as the king’s representative in local communities. Over time, as democratic systems developed in the United States, the sheriff became an elected official precisely to ensure that local communities, not distant authorities, controlled their own law enforcement. (https://www.sheriffs.org/about-nsa/history/roots)

In Washington state today, sheriffs serve as the chief law-enforcement officers of their counties and are responsible for enforcing state law, maintaining county jails, and preserving public peace. Unlike police chiefs, who are typically appointed by city governments, the sheriff answers directly to voters. This design is intentional. As one Washington commentary notes, the county sheriff is the only law-enforcement leader directly chosen by the people, making the office uniquely accountable to the community it serves. (https://www.sanjuanjournal.com/2026/01/28/two-bills-affecting-voters-and-sheriffs)

The principle behind this structure is simple: law enforcement in a free society should ultimately answer to the people. Elections provide that accountability. If citizens believe their sheriff is doing a poor job, they can remove that sheriff at the ballot box. When the power of removal shifts away from voters and toward unelected administrative bodies, the democratic nature of the office begins to erode.

The danger I see in the new legislation lies in the shift of authority away from local voters and toward state institutions. The Criminal Justice Training Commission already oversees certification and training for law-enforcement officers in Washington. But under the structure created by the bill, if the commission determines that a sheriff’s certification should be revoked, or that certain statutory requirements have not been met, the sheriff could be removed from office through the automatic creation of a vacancy.

This means that the continued service of an elected sheriff could depend on the decisions of a commission whose members were never chosen by the voters of the county affected by the decision. While proponents argue that certification standards ensure professionalism and accountability, critics worry that the mechanism creates a pathway for state-level political pressure to override local elections.

Historically, the elected sheriff has often been viewed as a final line of defense for local citizens against government overreach. Because sheriffs answer to local voters rather than state executives or city managers, they sometimes exercise discretion when deciding how, or whether to enforce controversial laws.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, this dynamic was clearly visible in Washington state. Several county sheriffs publicly declined to enforce statewide mask mandates or lockdown orders, arguing that criminal enforcement of such policies could harm community trust or exceed the appropriate role of law enforcement. For example, some Washington sheriff’s offices stated that it would be “inappropriate for deputies to criminally enforce” certain pandemic-related mandates and instead focused on education and voluntary compliance. (https://www.opb.org/news/article/washington-state-mask-order-county-sheriff-response)

In other cases, sheriffs openly refused to enforce particular state directives, leading to political controversy and even recall attempts. These conflicts highlighted the independence of the elected sheriff’s office: when local officials believe a state or national directive is misguided or unconstitutional, they sometimes decline to enforce it.

Similarly, conflicts have arisen between state governments and local sheriffs over firearm regulations. In recent years, numerous sheriffs across the United States have publicly stated that they would decline to enforce gun laws they believe violate the Second Amendment. During debates over firearm restrictions, hundreds of counties were declared “Second Amendment sanctuary” jurisdictions after local sheriffs and county officials pledged not to prioritize enforcement of laws they viewed as unconstitutional. In Washington state, several sheriffs publicly criticized or opposed certain gun-control measures approved by the legislature, emphasizing that their oath requires them to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Washington Constitution, not simply carry out political directives from Olympia. These situations highlight why the independence of an elected sheriff matters. When law-enforcement leaders are accountable directly to voters rather than state officials, they retain the ability to exercise discretion and resist enforcing laws they believe violate constitutional rights, something that could be undermined if an unelected state commission can decertify and remove sheriffs who refuse to comply.

Supporters of strong local sheriff authority argue that this independence is not a flaw but a feature of the system. It allows local communities to have a buffer between centralized political power and the enforcement of controversial policies.

Critics of the new bill fear that tying a sheriff’s ability to remain in office to certification controlled by a state commission could create a powerful lever for political pressure. If a sheriff refuses to enforce a controversial state policy, or publicly challenges state leadership, the commission could theoretically initiate disciplinary or decertification proceedings that ultimately force the sheriff out of office.

Even if such actions are rare, the mere existence of the mechanism could create a chilling effect. Sheriffs who worry about losing their certification, and therefore their office, may feel pressure to comply with state directives even when they believe those directives conflict with their oath or the will of their constituents.

The Broader Question: Who Should Control Local Law Enforcement?

At its core, the debate over this legislation reflects a broader philosophical question about the nature of democratic governance. Should law-enforcement leadership be controlled primarily by state institutions and professional regulatory bodies? Or should it remain directly accountable to local voters through elections?

For more than two centuries in the United States, the elected sheriff has represented a form of decentralized authority, an official whose legitimacy comes directly from the people of the county. While reforms and oversight mechanisms may be necessary to ensure professional standards, critics argue that transferring removal power to an unelected commission risks undermining that foundational principle.

If the people of a county choose their sheriff, many believe they should also retain the ultimate authority to remove that sheriff through elections or recall, not through administrative action by a distant state commission.

Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders had his own take on this controversial bill:

The State of Washington has passed the “Sheriff removal without your permission” bill, a piece of legislation that will now allow a non-elected, state appointed board to remove elected sheriffs from office without voter approval - with no guardrails in place to determine what constitutes removal in the future.

Instead of making it easier to recall ANY elected official for misconduct (which I have openly supported), Washington is sending a clear message that only Sheriffs are capable of committing serious misconduct.

Unless you’re a lawmaker that sexually harasses subordinates (2018). Or a lawmaker that shows up to work drunk (9 days ago). Or a lawmaker that leaves work drunk and crashes (2018). Or a PUD Commissioner engaged in bribery (2025). Or a Coroner that uses fentanyl found on dead bodies (2025). Or an Assessor that stalks his ex girlfriend in violation of a court order (2025). Or a predator Council member sexually assaulting a minor (2024). Or a county commissioner assaulting another person during a road rage incident (2025).

None of those elected officials are subject to “decertification” of any kind, nor can they be removed by an appointed state panel for their conduct. Only Sheriffs.

This is one of the most unpopular, hypocrisy ridden bills ever passed. Lawmakers would never subject themselves or other elected offices to this level of accountability, and it comes in the same session where a lawmaker apologized for being drunk on the job while debating laws that will impact the rest of us for years to come. Drinking on duty is conduct that would result in decertification and removal for an elected sheriff.

This bill undermines local elections, creates unnecessary mistrust toward our state government, spits in the face of our democratic process, will result in a costly legal battle, and doesn’t solve any real problems facing Washingtonians while artificially creating new ones.

The democratic answer to removing a sheriff you don’t like is not to twist and bend the system in your favor, but to put a better candidate on the ballot and win on election night.

Meanwhile, Washington has once again taken home the first place trophy for the 15th year in a row for being the worst staffed state in the country for police officers per capita.”