Court halts Washington law letting unelected board remove elected sheriffs

In a win for a coalition of Eastern Washington sheriffs, Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller granted a preliminary injunction preventing the core components of the law, including its most disputed section, from being enforced while the case moves forward.

https://twitter.com/CarleenJohn1970/status/2049655412019048526?s=20

According to The Center Square, the ruling came after arguments on Wednesday afternoon between attorneys representing four elected sheriffs and lawyers for the state. The law had been scheduled to go into effect at midnight on April 30.

https://twitter.com/CarleenJohn1970/status/2049632387462775081?s=20

SB 5974, passed by Democrat lawmakers and signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson, was framed as a measure to “modernize” eligibility requirements for sheriffs and other law enforcement leaders. But critics have warned from the outset that the law goes much further, allowing a governor-appointed board to remove elected sheriffs from office.

Specifically, the legislation gives the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) the authority to decertify sheriffs who fail to meet certain standards, effectively removing them from office, even if they were elected by voters. Opponents argue that the provision represents a fundamental shift of power away from the public.

“The most concerning provision of SB 5974 grants an unelected state board the authority to remove a duly elected sheriff from office,” Chelan County Sheriff Mike Morrison previously said. “This represents a fundamental shift of power away from voters and toward centralized authority.”

Sheriffs are elected in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties. Judge Schaller indicated she had serious constitutional concerns with the law, particularly with Section 9, which was ultimately enjoined. That section imposes new requirements on sheriffs, including age and experience thresholds, and opens the door for the CJTC to review past conduct, including social media posts and associations, in determining whether a sheriff should be decertified.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the provision amounts to unconstitutional overreach and violates First Amendment protections. “This motion is brought to protect the constitutional rights of candidates, sheriffs, and voters,” said Mark Lamb, the attorney representing the four sheriffs. “There is sixty years of unbroken case law…that such laws are presumptively unconstitutional.”

Schaller agreed that the law treats sheriffs differently from other elected officials and grants sweeping authority to an unelected board, raising significant constitutional questions. After reviewing an extensive briefing and hearing arguments, she granted the preliminary injunction, putting Section 9 and other portions of the law on hold.

https://twitter.com/CarleenJohn1970/status/2049613180629057937?s=20

The lawsuit was originally filed by Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels, Pend Oreille County Sheriff Glenn Blakeslee, Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke, and Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber, all of whom argue the law undermines voter sovereignty. Their complaint cites Article I, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution, which states that all political power is inherent in the people. Spokane County Sheriff Nowels previously testified that the law “undermines two bedrock principles of Washington state law: voter sovereignty and free elections.”

Critics have also argued that the bill could be used for politically motivated removals. Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank, one of the most vocal opponents, warned before the vote: “Sheriffs who dare push back get targeted. This is payback, not policy.” Some Republican lawmakers echoed that sentiment, dubbing the measure the “get rid of Keith Swank bill.”

https://twitter.com/CarleenJohn1970/status/2049594726589034772?s=20

The injunction does not permanently strike down SB 5974, but it blocks its most consequential provisions from taking effect while the courts consider the broader constitutional challenge. “If the law was allowed to go into effect, it would trespass on our constitutional right to run for office,” Nowels told The Center Square outside the courtroom.

Lamb called the ruling “a fantastic day for the Constitution,” adding that his clients are “really gratified” by the court’s decision.

https://rumble.com/embed/v76yuuk/?pub=2n05b