Rep. Joe Schmick: Who should decide who your sheriff is? You or Olympia?
In Washington state, we have long understood something simple yet important: if you don’t like your elected sheriff, you can vote them out. If they commit misconduct, there is a constitutional recall process.
That principle is not accidental. It is embedded in our state constitution. Voters choose their sheriff. And voters, through recall, can remove them.
That is why I am deeply concerned about Senate Bill 5974.
This bill allows the Criminal Justice Training Commission, an unelected board, to decertify a sitting sheriff and effectively vacate the office. In other words, it gives an appointed state panel – unelected bureaucrats – the power to override the will of the voters in a local election.
That is not modernization. It is a fundamental shift in who holds authority in our system of government.
Democrat legislators have argued it is about standards and accountability. But sheriffs are not appointed police chiefs. A police chief is selected by a city manager or mayor. A sheriff is chosen directly by the people of the county. That distinction matters.
In rural communities especially, the sheriff is often the most visible and accountable public official. They answer directly to their neighbors, not to Olympia. They advocate for their counties, sometimes in ways that may not align with state leadership. That independence is by design.
Our state constitution already provides a process for removing elected officials. Article I, sections 33 and 34 reserve that power to the voters through recall for misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of oath. That safeguard protects the sovereignty of the people. It ensures that removal is not a political tool used by those who disagree with an elected official’s positions.
We do not allow an unelected board to remove the governor. We do not allow one to remove legislators, prosecutors, or judges. Voters serve as the oversight committee for those offices. The same standard should apply to sheriffs.
Beyond the constitutional concerns, this bill creates real practical problems. It imposes new background checks, policy requirements, and compliance obligations on counties without providing funding. It invites confusion and litigation. And it places local governments, auditors, and prosecutors in the middle of what will almost certainly be lengthy court battles over constitutionality.
At a time when we should be focused on fighting crime, improving public safety, and supporting our communities, we are instead debating whether to centralize more authority in Olympia.
I respect that reasonable people can disagree on policy. But this is bigger than one sheriff or one county. It is about whether we trust voters to choose their own leaders.
If a sheriff fails their community, the people already have the power to act. They can organize a recall or vote that sheriff out at the next election. That is how representative government works.
Even as this bill continues to move through the legislative process, I believe it is important for citizens to stay informed and engaged. Laws affecting constitutional offices and local control deserve careful scrutiny with intense public input. They should be measured against the simple question: does this protect or weaken the voice of the voter?
My position is clear. The ballot box should remain the final authority in choosing and removing a county sheriff.
The sovereignty of the people is not something we should delegate to an unelected board.
