Who should decide who can serve as your county sheriff: voters or a state board?
That question sits at the center of Senate Bill 5974, legislation now awaiting a decision from Gov. Bob Ferguson. While the bill is framed as a measure to strengthen accountability, it also raises important questions about how professional certification should intersect with democratic elections.
In Washington, sheriffs wield significant authority, overseeing county law enforcement, setting priorities and managing deputies who enforce the law. That makes the question of who ultimately vets them particularly consequential.
Supporters of SB 5974 argue that sheriffs, like every other certified law enforcement officer in Washington, should be subject to professional standards and potential decertification when those standards are violated.
I do not disagree.
Accountability tied to professional certification is common in many professions and remains an important safeguard in law enforcement.
My concern lies earlier in the process.
In Washington, becoming a certified law enforcement officer involves extensive background investigations, psychological examinations and polygraph testing. Officers are entrusted with significant authority, including the power to detain, investigate and in rare cases use deadly force.
During my time as mayor of Tenino, I reviewed hiring packets for police chiefs and officers. Those packets included detailed investigations and psychological evaluations examining many aspects of a candidate’s life, including personal history, finances, relationships and decision-making patterns. Much of that information is highly confidential.
That level of scrutiny makes sense when hiring or appointing a law enforcement professional. But when those same processes intersect with a democratic election, the implications change. Elections operate on a fundamentally public principle. Campaigns subject candidates to scrutiny from the media, opponents and voters themselves. Citizens evaluate a candidate’s background, record, judgment, and character before deciding who should serve.
Professional certification, by contrast, relies on private investigations and judgments about suitability carried out by a board whose members are not elected by or directly accountable to the public.
Expanding that process to elected sheriffs raises concerns about privacy and candidate participation. Background investigations often involve deeply personal information, including mental health history, family relationships and past mistakes. Requiring candidates to submit that information to a statewide board could discourage qualified individuals from running and narrow the pool of candidates willing to serve.
More fundamentally, SB 5974 introduces a form of professional licensing into an elected office. Will the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission serve as a gatekeeper before ballots are cast, or conduct a post-election review of someone the public has already chosen? Either scenario creates tension between professional oversight and democratic authority.
To be clear, the concern that prompted this legislation is not without merit. When any elected law enforcement official publicly states they may refuse to enforce certain laws, it raises legitimate questions about accountability and the rule of law.
Legislators have a responsibility to respond when they believe gaps exist in the systems designed to ensure public officials follow the law. The challenge is ensuring that the solution addresses those concerns without creating new conflicts with the democratic structures that voters rely on.
But the tension underlying this debate is not entirely new. Law enforcement discretion exists at every level of government. City councils routinely establish enforcement priorities for their police departments, directing resources toward some crimes while placing less emphasis on others. Prosecutors make similar decisions every day when determining which cases to pursue.
Sheriffs exercise discretion as well, and that is where much of the recent conflict has emerged. In some cases, sheriffs associated with the constitutional sheriff movement have publicly stated they would not enforce certain laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
But the broader issue is not whether discretion exists — it always has. The real question is who ultimately holds the authority to set those priorities.
When a city council establishes enforcement priorities for a police department, that authority flows through appointed leadership. When a sheriff sets priorities, that authority flows directly from voters. Senate Bill 5974 sits squarely at the intersection of those two models of governance.
Accountability and democracy should not be competing values.
This decision now sits on Gov. Ferguson’s desk. He must veto this bill and tell the Legislature to come back with a better plan in 2027.
Washington can and should maintain strong professional standards for law enforcement leadership. But we must do so in a way that strengthens accountability without weakening the fundamental principle that the people — not a licensing board — choose their sheriff and hold them accountable at the ballot box.
•••
Wayne Fournier is a Thurston County commissioner and former mayor who has spent more than three decades working in public safety.
