Lawsuit aims to block new eligibility requirements for WA sheriffs

Four sheriffs are suing over a state law that sets new eligibility rules, arguing it undermines voter authority by allowing removal for certification issues.

A group of sheriffs from eastern Washington is challenging the law, which the governor signed this week

Jake Goldstein-Street
Washington State Standard

Four eastern Washington sheriffs filed suit Friday seeking to block a new law that provides a path to remove sheriffs from office.

The sheriffs — John Nowels of Spokane County, Glenn Blakeslee of Pend Oreille County, Brad Manke of Stevens County and Ray Maycumber of Ferry County — believe the law is undemocratic and should be tossed out. They argue the state constitution doesn’t give the Legislature the power to create a removal process like the one envisioned.

The law, which Gov. Bob Ferguson signed Wednesday, sets heightened eligibility requirements for sheriffs, who are mostly elected in Washington. Sheriffs could be forced from office if they don’t meet the new standards.

The quartet of sheriffs argue Senate Bill 5974 “does not merely regulate how sheriffs perform their duties. Instead, it conditions eligibility to run for, assume, and remain in office on compliance with a statewide administrative certification regime.”

In doing so, it “shifts decisive authority over the office of county sheriff away from voters and elected officials and vests it in an unelected executive agency,” reads the lawsuit filed in Pend Oreille County Superior Court.

Ferguson, a Democrat, signed the legislation despite some misgivings and presumed legal challenges. He and the legislation’s other backers believe it’ll stand up to litigation. It passed the Legislature despite firm opposition from minority Republicans.

The suit names Ferguson, the Legislature and the state of Washington as defendants. The attorney general’s office is responsible for defending the state from lawsuits.

“We’re reviewing it with the other named parties,” said department spokesperson Mike Faulk.

Ferguson said he may want to consider changes to the vacancy process in the law come 2027.

“It’s a serious step when someone’s being removed from office, speaking as an elected official,” Ferguson told reporters Wednesday. “I just want to make sure we’re being as thoughtful as possible on that, and so I just pressed that to the bill sponsors.”

In the weeks before he signed it, sheriffs had urged Ferguson to veto sections of the law. He met with some of them to hear their concerns.

The new criteria for county sheriffs include having five years of full-time law enforcement experience, not having any felony or gross misdemeanor convictions, being at least 25 years old and not having done anything that would get state certification as a peace officer revoked.

Candidates for sheriff or police chief must sign a sworn statement ensuring they meet these new standards. The suing sheriffs call this an unconstitutional and vague “loyalty oath,” given the discretion the Criminal Justice Training Commission has to deny or revoke certification.

Sheriffs will also now need to get their certification if they don’t already have it within nine months of taking office. Previously, they had a year. The sheriffs’ lawsuit calls this an “arbitrary or discriminatory certification process.”

Losing or not having certification from the Criminal Justice Training Commission will force sheriffs to vacate office. They’d be replaced by county officials until another election could be held. Previously, the only option for removing a sheriff from office was if voters turned to the rarely used recall process.

The law’s supporters see it as holding sheriffs to the same standards as rank-and-file officers.

The sheriffs are asking a Pend Oreille County Superior Court judge for an initial order blocking the law while litigation proceeds. A hearing is set for April 16.

Walla Walla County Sheriff Mark Crider, who isn’t a plaintiff in this lawsuit, said Thursday he expected to file a separate lawsuit as part of the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association.

“There’s nothing in that law that can be changed to make it palatable,” Crider said. “It’s an unconstitutional law and it should be stricken from the books.”

He believes some counties may also sue. They’re concerned about a provision that forces them to foot the bill for state background investigations into all sheriff candidates.

Much of the law takes effect at the end of April, just in time for the electoral candidate filing period in early May. Most county sheriffs, including the four plaintiffs, are up for election this year. Almost all of Washington’s sheriffs take office via election, while police chiefs are appointed.

The sheriffs in this case are represented by lawyer Mark Lamb, a former Bothell mayor. He specializes in First Amendment litigation and other cases.

The bill’s chief supporters, Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, and Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.

Reporter Jerry Cornfield contributed to this report. This report was first published by the Washington State Standard.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

In this opinion column, Washington Policy Center Vice President Todd Myers argues that large protests and mass public comments often do little to change policy because politicians and bureaucrats frequently treat the public as an annoyance rather than as the source of authority. He contends that citizens are more likely to have meaningful influence through local, practical engagement where feedback is closer to decision-making and easier to measure.

What Grok notices

Contrasts the emotional visibility of protests with the columnist’s claim that they rarely produce direct policy change.
Uses examples of ignored opposition and complex bureaucratic processes to argue that many institutions are structured to absorb or deflect public pressure rather than respond to it.
Highlights how technical processes, such as lengthy environmental review documents, can discourage ordinary participation and make public input feel performative.
Draws on a broader argument about modern public discourse, suggesting that intensity and scale do not necessarily translate into effectiveness.
Promotes local trial-and-error governance as a more practical model for civic influence because decision-makers are closer, more visible, and easier to hold accountable.

Questions worth asking

How might shifting energy from large protests to local action change the real-world effectiveness of citizen engagement?
What reforms could make public comment systems more transparent, accessible, and harder for officials to dismiss?
Which examples of successful local problem-solving offer useful models for citizens who want more practical influence?
How do institutional incentives for centralized control shape the way political leaders respond to public opposition?
What concrete steps can individuals take in their own communities to improve accountability and rebuild trust in public institutions?