Rep. Chris Corry: Before you can vote for sheriff, Olympia wants to approve the candidate
Under new legislation being pushed in Olympia, before a person’s name can even appear on the ballot for county sheriff, that individual must first pass review by a state agency.
Not the voters. Not the county. A state commission made up of appointed – not elected – bureaucrats.
Senate Bill 5974 requires candidates for sheriff to submit to a background investigation conducted by the Washington State Patrol prior to filing deadlines. The Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) must then publicly post whether that candidate has passed or failed. Completion of that process becomes a mandatory condition of candidacy.
That is not a procedural tweak. It is a structural change in who controls access to a constitutional office.
The office of sheriff is not created by statute. It is established in our state constitution. For generations, voters in each county have chosen who will serve as their chief law enforcement officer. If that sheriff commits misconduct, the constitution already provides the remedy: recall for misfeasance, malfeasance, or violation of oath under Article I, sections 33 and 34.
SB 5974 creates a different pathway. If a sheriff is later decertified by the CJTC pursuant to a final decision, the office is declared vacant. No recall election. No vote of the people. A vacancy.
Supporters argue this is about accountability. Accountability matters. But so does constitutional design.
We do not empower an unelected board to remove the governor. We do not authorize one to vacate the office of a legislator, prosecutor, or judge. The removal of elected officials in Washington has always been a question for the voters.
Sheriffs are treated differently under this bill.
SB 5974 also narrows who may run in the first place. It imposes a five-year government law enforcement experience requirement, mandatory certification maintenance, and pre-election background investigations that do not apply to other constitutional offices. The state effectively becomes a gatekeeper to candidacy.
Whatever one thinks about individual sheriffs or the politics of the day, this precedent should concern us all. If an unelected commission can determine who qualifies to run and whether an elected official may continue serving, authority has shifted away from the electorate.
The bill also carries practical consequences. Counties must reimburse the state for background investigations and comply with new certification and policy mandates. There is no appropriation to cover those costs. When constitutional challenges arise, as many expect, local taxpayers will bear the expense of litigation.
There is also an emergency clause, accelerating implementation and preventing the people from repealing the law through a referendum. Instead, repeal would require the initiative process which requires significantly more signatures to qualify.
Proponents contend that requiring certification and background checks strengthens democracy. But democracy is not strengthened when the state assumes voters cannot evaluate qualifications on their own. In every election cycle, candidates present their credentials and records. Voters weigh that information and decide.
That process is not a flaw. It is the system.
If a sheriff abuses authority, voters may initiate a recall. If a sheriff loses public confidence, voters may remove that person at the next election. Those mechanisms were intentionally designed to place ultimate authority with the people.
SB 5974 sends a different message. It suggests that final judgment should rest with a centralized board in Olympia rather than the citizens of each county.
Washington’s constitutional framework rests on self-government. Power flows upward from the people, not downward from administrative bodies. When we alter that balance, even in the name of reform, we should do so cautiously.
The question before us is not whether standards matter. It is whether we trust voters to choose and, when necessary, remove their own sheriff – or whether “our betters” in Olympia should make that decision instead.
Our constitution answers that question clearly: The people decide.
