Sheriffs raise alarm about WA bill to allow state board to boot them from office
Sheriffs across Washington are sounding off sirens about a bill they say is a state effort to control their offices.
Sen. John Lovick, prime sponsor of Senate Bill 5974, disagrees with that take. The Mill Creek Democrat once served as a Snohomish County sheriff and state trooper, and supporters view his proposal as necessary to build up trust between marginalized communities and law enforcement.
The bill would add steeper eligibility criteria for law enforcement leaders like sheriffs, and their seat would be vacated if they get decertified by a governor-appointed commission, with counties in charge of replacing them.
Lovick said the measure — which is similar to legislation passed in Texas and Georgia — is about holding sheriffs and police chiefs to the same high standards to which they hold their officers.
“It’s time for total accountability, and that’s what this legislation is about: accountability,” Lovick said.
Thirty-eight counties in Washington elect their sheriffs, he noted, but one has an appointment process: King County.
SB 5974 passed off the Senate floor Thursday on a party-line 30-19 vote, with only Democratic support; it now heads to the House, where it will need to clear more legislative hurdles. The controversial bill has stirred up strong reactions from certain sheriffs this session — Pierce County’s Keith Swank chief among them.
The proposal would alter the eligibility criteria for becoming a sheriff, marshal or police chief and create a new background-check process for such candidates, per the bill report.
Yet the most contentious piece of the legislation has opponents blasting it as “undemocratic”: the removal-from-office component.
Sheriffs currently don’t face the same qualification standards as police chiefs regarding law enforcement experience, education and criminal history, the Washington State Standard reported. Within a year of taking office, though, they do need to be certified by the Criminal Justice Training Commission; the bill would speed up that 12-month timeline to nine months.
Whatcom County Sheriff Donnell Tanksley told McClatchy that the CJTC does great work, but that giving it more authority over who can serve as sheriff “is raising an eyebrow.”
The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs wrote in a newsletter last month that while the commission can currently decertify sheriffs, under the bill, decertification would also result in the official’s ousting from office. Although WASPC said that it supports standards for sheriffs, “this is distinctive in that it would allow the unelected CJTC Commission to remove an elected official,” the newsletter said.
The way Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond sees it, the bill is an attempt to nix outspoken sheriffs who refuse to fall in line with legislative direction and control.
“Sheriffs are just against: ‘Where … do you, state legislator, get off — thinking that our voters are stupid or what?” he said.
Under the bill, sheriffs must be at least 25 years old, pass a background check, have no misdemeanor or felony convictions, and count at least five years’ continual service as a law enforcement officer. Those who served in the military must have received an honorable discharge.
Some critics argue that the bill simply isn’t needed. There’s already a recall process in place to remove bad-acting sheriffs, they contend. But Lovick says that it’s difficult to launch a successful recall effort, which requires going out and collecting signatures.
Thurston County resident Steve Albrecht spoke of an “arduous” recall process during a public hearing on the bill earlier this month, arguing that recalls aren’t “effective accountability.”
“I’ll just say that a good system doesn’t ask its top cops not to pass a background check,” Albrecht added.
Lovick argues that no one would want a decertified officer — someone who has the ability to make arrests and take a life — to continue interacting with the public, and asks: Why should that be allowed for an elected sheriff?
Republican Sen. Jeff Wilson of Longview said during Thursday’s floor debate that the bill’s “first victim” would be Pacific County Sheriff Daniel Garcia, a Navy veteran who doesn’t count previous experience in law enforcement.
Sen. Keith Wagoner, a Sedro Woolley Republican, argued that this bill would make it harder to fill such jobs, especially in small rural counties that might struggle to find candidates who meet the new qualifications.
Yet supporters insist that the time is ripe for the measure to become law.
Malou Chávez, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, testified in support of SB 5974 this month. She said many in her community fear they won’t be protected if they call law enforcement for help, or that officers might assist federal immigration enforcement in violation of state law.
Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, a Tacoma Democrat, said during Thursday’s floor debate that some people in her county don’t want to call the sheriff depending on their background, the language they speak or whether they have an accent.
“They do not trust that relationship,” she said, “and we all got to see what happens when unchecked power comes into this body and says, ‘We don’t recognize your authority.’”
She seemed to be referring to controversy around Swank’s recent appearance in Olympia.
Swank could potentially be expelled from WASPC after delivering fiery testimony against the measure last month. Alluding to another bill that would generally prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing masks, the Pierce County sheriff told the Senate Law & Justice Committee that he didn’t recognize their power to place such controls over him.
“When you try to remove me from office, thousands of Pierce County residents will surround the County-City Building in downtown Tacoma and will not allow that to happen,” Swank said. “I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I and they are prepared. Are you prepared?”
WASPC issued a response that his comments could be viewed as “threatening” to lawmakers, even though the group also opposes SB 5974.
Lovick and other Democratic senators have argued that the Pierce County sheriff illustrates exactly why the legislation is needed.
Swank told McClatchy in an interview that lawmakers don’t put out qualifications for themselves, but that they’re attempting to do so for sheriffs. He views it as an effort for Democrats to nix sheriffs they don’t like.
“They’re trying to be kings in Olympia,” Swank said.
Thurston County Sheriff Derek Sanders doesn’t mind some of the bill’s provisions, such as language surrounding the use of volunteers. Others, however, worry him.
One example hinges around proposed background checks that would be conducted by the Washington State Patrol. Sanders said those probes can take four or five months and include polygraph, psychological and medical exams, plus house checks and meeting with family members. Different investigators also bring along varying biases when determining what counts as disqualifying conduct, he added.
In Sanders’ view, if a sheriff candidate is disliked, the best way to deal with them is by running a better contender. Otherwise voters might not trust that the sheriff they chose will get to stay, he said.
“I think they’re going to find that there’s going to be a lot of people who have further mistrust in their government when this thing passes,” Sanders said.
But Lovick said removals will only happen for serious misconduct or failure to uphold the law — not for being unpopular.
Leaders should want to be held accountable, he said.
“We stand for what we tolerate,” Lovick said. “If we’re going to tolerate an unqualified sheriff in office, sometimes that’s what we stand for.”
This story was originally published February 14, 2026 at 5:00 AM.
.jpg)