A bill moving through Washington's Legislature would make ousting elected sheriffs easier if they lose certification, a move some sheriffs throughout the state are calling overreach.
Online commentary and a fiery committee testimony from a sheriff pushed the bill into the statewide spotlight.
Here's what we know about Senate Bill 5974.
What does the bill change?
Sponsor Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, said Senate Bill 5974 modernizes and strengthens rules concerning law enforcement leadership within the state. Lovick served as Snohomish County sheriff from 2007 to 2013.
We're trying to hold the leaders, whether it's a police chief, appointed or elected, a sheriff appointed or elected, to the same high standards that we hold all officers to, the subordinates are held to, and that's the whole idea behind the legislation," Lovick said.
The bill increased the minimum age to be eligible to serve as sheriff from 18 to 25 and tightened rules around volunteers within policing. However, the discourse has focused on new background check requirements and rules related to peace officer certification.
Current law and peace officer certification
To be a sworn law enforcement officer in Washington, one must obtain a peace officer certification from the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, a process that requires a background check, for everyone except elected sheriffs.
Current law requires sheriffs to undergo CJTC-approved law enforcement training within 12 months of assuming office, but there's no automatic removal process for those who don't comply.
Instead, the sheriff can remain in office but becomes open to potential court challenges or a recall election. Under current law, if a patrol cop or sheriff's deputy loses certification, they are no longer allowed to be a sworn law enforcement officer.
The legislation would disqualify candidates who had their certification "denied, revoked, or voluntarily surrendered" at any point in their careers.
Anne Levinson, a former Seattle judge who became a subject matter expert on police accountability, worked on the legislation with Lovick.
"Allowing someone to continue as the leader of a law enforcement agency after having been decertified for misconduct could be detrimental to public safety, and would also undermine community trust and confidence," she said in an email.
If the Senate bill is passed, failing to obtain certification triggers an automatic vacancy in the sheriff position, removing the sheriff from power. In the event of a vacancy, county lawmakers are tasked with filling the role.
Current law and background checks
Sheriff candidates are not required to submit to a background check under current law. However, after taking office, a sheriff who is not already certified must undergo a background investigation as part of the process of obtaining the required peace officer certification.
Senate Bill 5974 would require a background check through the Washington State Patrol before a candidate can qualify to hold the office. So, technically, a background check was required to be a sheriff, but it was not a requirement to run for sheriff.
The bill requires the background check findings to be public.
"That's the purpose of the background check," Lovick said. "Give us the facts about who they are. Give the public the facts so that they will know who they are voting for.'"
What is law enforcement saying about the bill?
Some in Washington's law enforcement community, including several sheriffs, are staunchly against the legislation.
Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank is one of the more vocal opponents and told lawmakers during a Senate Committee on Law and Justice meeting on Jan. 15 that they don't understand the weight of the bill. He threatened that he and others would show up at the County-City Building in downtown Tacoma if the law is passed and he is removed from power. He did not elaborate on what he and supporters would do at the building.
Swank, according to CJTC spokesperson David Quinlan, has seven complaints against him, but none of them have made it far in the decertification process. Swank, in past interviews and online, has argued the bill is targeted at free speech.
"They're going to say that the speech I say is hate speech, they're gonna have me decertified at CJTC, and then they're going to have CJTC remove me from office," Swank said in a Jan. 15 interview. "And what I'm saying is, there are people, 190,000 people voted for me when I won the election."
While leadership within the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs opposes the legislation, they are urging for Swank to be expelled from the organization after threatening to show up. The association president, Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels, and Executive Director Steven Strachan condemned Swank for his testimony.
"The sheriff from Pierce County made the argument as to why we need this legislation," Lovick said. "When he was talking, I recall just thinking to myself, 'This is exactly why we have this legislation. We as a state need to hold our elected officials accountable.'"
Other sheriffs, including Derek Sanders in Thurston County and Mike Morrison in Chelan County, said the law would remove autonomy from voters.
"Washington voters have demonstrated their ability to hold Sheriffs accountable at the ballot box," Morrison said in a statement Jan. 10.
Sheriffs serve four-year terms.
What are proponents of the bill saying?
Sheriffs in Adams, Grant, Lincoln, Skamania and Spokane counties also oppose the legislation.
The state's Republican Party is also against the bill. GOP lawmakers have proposed an alternate bill in the House that would create an automatic recall election if a sheriff loses certification in serious cases, but stops short of declaring the office vacant.
The Washington Coalition for Police Accountability supports SB 5974. Leslie Cushman, a co-founder of the coalition, said the change is necessary because recall elections can fail, leaving an uncertified sheriff with law enforcement power.
"The professional licensing standards for peace officers are very thoughtful and fair," Cushman said in a text message. "If your license has been revoked, you have had lots of due process, and you’ve had the opportunity to be represented by an attorney. 5974 is long overdue and is necessary."
Brian Higgins is a former police chief and current lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. He wonders why it took this long.
"I'm not on anybody's side, but in and of itself, this seems like a commonsense law that should have put in practice years ago," Higgins said.
What's next?
The Senate Committee on Law and Justice met Jan. 22 to discuss the bill and vote on amendments. Sen. Jeff Holy, R-Cheney, proposed an amendment that would have transformed the bill into a recall-based system, automatically triggering elections when a sheriff lost certification.
During the meeting, Holy, a former Spokane police officer and ranking member on the committee, questioned the bill's constitutionality.
"I'm trying to sterilize this to the point where it actually fits a constitutional formula framework here that will continue to actually honor the vote of the people and try not to work around it by some sort of administrative process, he said.
The amendment was rejected.
Committee Chair Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, authored an amendment specifying that any vacancy created under the bill would be filled using the state’s existing vacancy statute, RCW 36.16.110, instead of a new process in the bill. The amendment, which passed, also expanded the bill’s scope to include violations of civil immigration laws.
The committee voted to send the bill to the Ways and Means Committee, which will decide whether it advances to the rules committee.
© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
