Thurston County Judge Halts Controversial Sheriff Decertification Law Ahead of Rollout
In a ruling handed down late Wednesday, Judge Christine Schaller sided with a coalition of eastern Washington sheriffs and law enforcement candidates who argued that Senate Bill 5974 violates both the First Amendment and the state constitution.
The injunction specifically halts the enforcement of “Section 9” of the legislation. The provision would have granted the Criminal Justice Training Commission—a board appointed by the governor—the authority to decertify and remove duly elected county sheriffs from office for misconduct.
Under the law, the criteria for decertification could have included subjective factors, such as specific personal associations or social media posts.
The original lawsuit was spearheaded by four eastern Washington sheriffs: Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels, Pend Oreille County Sheriff Glenn Blakeslee, Stevens County Sheriff Brad Manke, and Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber.
A related suit, also addressed in Wednesday’s proceedings, was filed by Kitsap County Sheriff candidate Rick Kuss and the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association.
During the hearing, plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Lamb argued that allowing an unelected, governor-appointed board to unseat a local, independently elected official represents a gross overreach of state executive power.
Judge Schaller agreed, stating in her oral ruling that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their case. Her legal reasoning highlighted constitutional issues with the new law. She emphasized that penalizing or removing sheriffs over subjective social media activity poses a direct threat to First Amendment protections.
Furthermore, Judge Schaller noted that SB 5974 holds sheriffs to a wholly unprecedented standard.
In addition to halting the CJTC’s decertification powers, the judge’s order also temporarily blocks new, stricter eligibility requirements for those seeking to run for sheriff.
The law would have required candidates to be at least 25 years old and possess five consecutive years of law enforcement experience.
The ruling, however, was not a total defeat for the legislation. The injunction does not block portions of the law that apply the same new standards to appointed city police chiefs, nor does it impact a provision that restricts the use of police volunteers.
With the preliminary injunction now in place, the bulk of the decertification law will remain paused as the case proceeds toward a full trial, where the court will make a final determination on the constitutionality of the measure.
The state plans to appeal the preliminary injunction.
Clallam County Sheriff Applauds Ruling
Clallam County Sheriff Brian King expressed strong approval of the judge’s decision, viewing it as a critical defense of the democratic process.
“Yesterday, the right of the people to elect their own representatives without supervision of Olympia, and to decertify sheriffs by a governor’s appointed board, was upheld,” Sheriff King told me.
He emphasized that while he supports strong accountability and meets all the requirements to hold office, the CJTC “was not designed to serve as the mechanism that removes someone chosen by the voters from elected office.”
Sheriff King pointed to recent history in Washington State—including the voter-led recall of a Benton County sheriff and the electoral defeats of sitting sheriffs in Snohomish and Thurston counties—as proof that existing democratic mechanisms are already effective.
“These are not failures of democratic accountability; they are proof that it functions,” he said.
“I believe this is a win for voter rights and a win for Clallam County and our office,” King added, noting that subjective administrative removals would strip law enforcement of the discretion necessary to set local priorities and serve their communities effectively.
Brian King needs to get his own house in order before worrying so much about the other counties.
The way the bill controls volunteers has been my biggest issue with the bill — which never seems to get addressed by local law enforcement. At the public safety town hall, only once or twice was the volunteer issue brought up and how the bill restricts what volunteers can do. That’s it.
Meantime, the sheriff claims it’s a lack of resources that’s the problem. Every time a lack of resources is blamed, it should be followed by the need for volunteers — but that does not happen.
What I never liked about this bill is that it distracts from law enforcement not doing their jobs already; maybe by state mandate, maybe by a lack of willpower, not manpower. I never liked the bill, but I don’t see that bill as a reason to excuse the public safety concerns in Clallam County.
Why does it take the threat of a sheriff losing his position to make him speak out? He should be just as vocal every time there is a threat to public safety, and it shouldn’t be reserved to facebook. The sheriff’s office has a website; last I saw they don’t put daily updates on there, and that website is funded by tax dollars. Their last YouTube video is from a year ago; no daily briefings, or even weekly briefings. At the town hall the Sheriff King says he needs to communicate more; I agree, but it shouldn’t be just about a law that threatens his position.