Ronald D. Reed: The rule of law cannot be optional for sheriffs

By Ronald D. Reed

Washington’s new sheriff accountability law, Senate Bill 5974, has now been temporarily blocked in court after lawsuits filed by four Eastern Washington sheriffs. The plaintiffs argue the law violates voters’ rights because it could ultimately remove elected sheriffs from office.

That claim deserves careful scrutiny, because it fundamentally misrepresents what this law actually does.

SB 5974 does not cancel elections. It does not give the governor power to remove sheriffs. It does not “take power away from voters.” What it does is require elected sheriffs to meet the same professional certification and conduct standards expected of virtually every other peace officer in Washington state.

That should not be controversial.

Every police officer in Washington is required to meet standards established through state law and overseen by the Criminal Justice Training Commission. If officers engage in serious misconduct, lose certification or violate professional standards, they can no longer serve as commissioned law enforcement officers.

SB 5974 simply clarifies that sheriffs are not exempt from that framework merely because they are elected.

Opponents insist this somehow undermines democracy. In reality, it reinforces one of democracy’s most foundational principles: No public official is above the law.

This debate is occurring within the larger context of the so-called “Constitutional Sheriffs” movement – an ideology asserting that county sheriffs possess independent authority to decide which laws they will enforce based on their personal interpretation of the Constitution.

That ideology is deeply dangerous.

Under our constitutional system, legislatures pass laws, executives enforce them, and courts determine constitutionality. Individual sheriffs do not possess unilateral authority to nullify state or federal law because they disagree with it politically or ideologically.

Yet we have increasingly seen rhetoric suggesting otherwise.

Some sheriffs associated with this movement have publicly questioned the authority of legislatures, courts, governors and even federal agencies. In Washington, testimony surrounding SB 5974 included statements implying that lawmakers lacked authority to impose standards on sheriffs and warnings about supporters surrounding government buildings if such authority were exercised.

We should all be alarmed by this.

The framers of our constitutional system understood the danger of concentrating coercive power in officials who are insufficiently accountable to law. That is precisely why checks and balances exist.

Sheriffs wield extraordinary authority. They carry weapons under color of law. They oversee jails, enforce court orders, and exercise immense discretion affecting citizens’ liberty and safety. With that authority must come clear professional standards and legal accountability.

The lawsuits challenging SB 5974 rely heavily on the argument that voters alone should decide whether sheriffs remain in office. But voters already elect officials within constitutional and statutory boundaries. We do not permit elected judges to practice law after disbarment. We do not allow elected officials convicted of certain crimes to continue serving indefinitely simply because they won an election.

Elections confer authority. They do not confer immunity.

Nor should this be viewed as an attack on rural Washington or local law enforcement. Most sheriffs serve honorably and professionally under difficult circumstances. Many would likely agree that public trust in law enforcement depends upon accountability and adherence to uniform standards.

The issue here is much larger than any individual sheriff or county. It is whether Washington will affirm a basic democratic principle: that no elected law-enforcement official has the authority to place themselves above the rule of law.

The courts will ultimately decide the constitutional questions surrounding SB 5974. Reasonable people may debate aspects of the law’s drafting or implementation. But the broader principle should not be difficult to defend.

In a constitutional democracy, the law must govern everyone equally – especially those entrusted with enforcing it.

Washington cannot afford to normalize the idea that elected sheriffs may selectively accept the authority of state law while simultaneously wielding its powers.

That path does not strengthen democracy. It weakens it.

Ronald D. Reed of Spokane is the founder of Seven Generations Innovation, retired CEO of PacifiCAD, Inc., and a civic and environmental advocate.