Senate bill proposes new requirements for law enforcement
By Cassie Diamond
OLYMPIA – Sheriffs from across Washington state testified against a bill that would introduce new eligibility criteria for police chiefs, marshals,and sheriffs during a contentious public hearing Jan. 15.
One sheriff’s testimony was considered so inappropriate that the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) is considering expelling him. And the prime sponsor of the bill said the remarks show why new requirements are needed.
The sheriffs claimed Senate Bill 5974 would wrongly give the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC), an unelected body, the power to remove an elected sheriff from office if their certification as a law enforcement officer is revoked.
“This legislation … is an offense to me as a citizen and a voter in the state of Washington,” John Nowels, Spokane County sheriff and president of WASPC, said. “This bill essentially and functionally removes the voice of voters in the state of Washington.”
But, for the prime sponsor of the bill, Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, this policy is a way to modernize outdated standards and improve relationships between the public and law enforcement.
“The ultimate impact we hope to make with the bill is better community relations and total accountability,” Lovick said.
Under current law, police chiefs and marshals are subject to several eligibility criteria. This includes having a high school diploma, having no gross misdemeanor convictions within five years of application, and having at least two years of regular, full-time commissioned law enforcement employment.
The current eligibility requirement for sheriffs, who are the only elected law enforcement leaders in Washington, is to obtain certification from the CJTC within 12 months of assuming office.
The proposed bill would add new eligibility requirements for chiefs and marshals, such as obtaining certification within nine months of taking office, passing a new background investigation process, and having five years of regular, uninterrupted, full-time law enforcement employment.
The legislation would also make sheriffs subject to both the current and added eligibility requirements chiefs and marshals are subject to.
Lovick, who served as a state trooper for 31 years and the sheriff of Snohomish County for about six years, said his proposed bill puts him at odds with many current sheriffs. While Lovick said he is fine with people disagreeing over the measure, he emphasized that any disagreements should remain respectful. Some were not, he said.
In particular, Lovick said that Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank’s comments during his testimony could be seen as threatening to legislators.
“I don’t recognize your authority to impose controls over me, and 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?”
A joint statement released Thursday evening by Nowels and WASPC Executive Director Steven Strachan, a former King County sheriff, referred to Swank’s comments as “inflammatory” and not representative of the views or approach of WASPC. The statement also said WASPC intends to initiate proceedings to consider expulsion of Swank from the
organization.
“[Swank] is the top law enforcement official in that county, and it’s unfortunate that he had to say what he said and make some people I know … [feel] threatened,” Lovick said.
SB 5974 is currently scheduled for an executive session Jan. 22 in the Senate Committee on Law and Justice. The policies proposed in SB 5974 were previously introduced in House Bill 1399 and its companion bill Senate Bill 5364 during last year’s legislative session.
While neither bill passed, Lovick said the amount of work and energy put into crafting the current bill makes him believe it will reach the governor’s
desk this session.
“I’m confident this bill is going to pass,” Lovick said. “The person who probably said the most that it should happen was Keith Swank. He basically showed the reason we need this kind of legislation.”
The Washington State Journal is a nonprofit news website operated bythe WNPA Foundation. To learn more, go to wastatejournal.org .
Statement from Clallam County Sheriff Brian King on Senate Bill 5974
I wish to express my concern and to urge opposition to Washington State Senate Bill 5974. Commonly referred to as the Police Chiefs and Sheriff’s Qualifications Bill, SB 5974, in its current for,m undermines the ability of citizens to choose who serves as their elected Sheriff.
Working closely with the Washington State Sheriff’s Association (WSSA) and the Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC), it is clear that we do not oppose reasonable professional standards for Sheriffs or Chiefs. However, such standards must be carefully crafted and free from political ideology or advantage. As drafted, SB 5974 raises serious constitutional and practical concerns, including:
• Violating Article I, Section 19 of the Washington Constitution by requiring candidates for Sheriff to submit to a Washington State Patrol background investigation and allowing the Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) to deem a candidate “unsuitable for election,” thereby barring them from running;
• Violating Article I, Section 33 of the Washington Constitution by vacating the Office of Sheriff if CJTC certification is not maintained and/or revoked by a state-appointed civilian board;
• Eliminating enforcement discretion by mandating that all state laws “shall” be enforced, removing the ability of Sheriffs and Deputies to exercise judgment; and
• Severely limiting the use of volunteers and specially commissioned officers, which many departments rely upon to reduce costs and increase capacity.
Leadership in law enforcement is critical, and experience and expertise matter. I fully support requiring Sheriffs, Chiefs, and Marshals to meet certification and decertification standards consistent with other peace officers. Nonetheless, the language of this bill risks restricting volunteer programs and imposing unintended consequences on local agencies.
WSSA and WASPC have worked collaboratively to develop counterproposals and amendments informed by the collective input of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs statewide. That these professional voices have been largely disregarded by legislators is deeply troubling.
There should be no doubt that SB 5974 is politically motivated and would significantly alter the Office of Sheriff. Supporters claim it is necessary to “rein in rogue Sheriffs” or “bring accountability” to law enforcement leadership, relying on inflammatory rhetoric rather than facts. The vast majority of Sheriffs are not “rogue” and are committed to the rule of law and public service.
This bill also creates serious ambiguity regarding governance—raising the question of whether Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are accountable to the counties and cities they serve or to the state itself. Such uncertainty erodes local authority and undermines the constitutional balance of power.
Centralized control is not the solution. Recent statewide policy shifts have too often ignored local voices, including victims and law enforcement professionals, resulting in unintended consequences and rising crime. While Sheriffs are at least as accountable as any other elected official, no comparable legislation has been proposed to impose similar controls on legislators or other elected offices. This bill places legislative will above voter choice.
There is a saying in law enforcement that “every policy has a name behind it.” SB 5974 reflects this reality. Many of its provisions appear aimed at silencing or removing elected Sheriffs whose views are unpopular with certain political interests. The truth is, there are Sheriffs who I disagree with and who I believe are not fit to hold the office. However, disagreement with speech or opinions should never justify overturning the will of the voters.
The separation of powers is a foundational principle of both the United States and Washington Constitutions. Article I, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution affirms that all political power is inherent in the people. SB 5974 represents a direct attempt by the legislative branch to control who voters may elect, encroaching upon the executive role of the Sheriff and stripping citizens of their constitutional authority. Simply put, the Office of Sheriff belongs to the people of each county—not the Legislature.
Sheriffs are uniquely positioned as both law enforcement leaders and elected representatives. They are already directly accountable through elections, recall, and public scrutiny. Recent history demonstrates that voters are fully capable of holding Sheriffs accountable:
• Jerry Hatcher (Benton County) was removed from office through recall.
• Adam Fortney (Snohomish County) was not re-elected following public controversy.
• John Snaza (Thurston County) was defeated by a challenger after multiple terms.
These examples underscore the effectiveness of democratic accountability, and not the will of a state appointed commission on “oversight”.
Professional standards are already being met. Every elected Sheriff in Washington has either entered office as a certified peace officer or obtained certification immediately thereafter. No Sheriff in recent memory has been decertified and remained in office. This reflects the strong professional culture within the Office of Sheriff.
The Office of Sheriff is already held to high standards of professionalism and accountability. Legislative efforts to impose additional controls must not override voter authority or undermine democratic principles. Accountability must remain consistent, transparent, and rooted in the will of the people—not selectively applied.
I urge Clallam County to join me in voicing concerns to your 24th District Legislators and oppose SB 5974.
Brian King
Clallam County Sheriff
