Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller on Friday permanently blocked the new rules for who may serve as an elected county sheriff in Washington. The attorney general’s office says it will appeal. The decision does not erase the whole statute. A written order is still expected later this month.
Gov. Bob Ferguson signed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974 on April 1, 2026. The enrolled act is Chapter 258, Laws of 2026, and the signature line reads 9:35 a.m. The Senate’s final vote, on March 9, was 30–19. The House vote, on March 5, was 54–42, with the Legislature’s bill page listing two members excused. Sen. John Lovick, a Mill Creek Democrat and a former Snohomish County sheriff, was the lead sponsor. The act’s title says it modernizes rules for sheriffs, police chiefs, town marshals, volunteers, and related officers. Most of it was set to take effect April 30. Sections 6, 7, and 10 take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
Sheriffs in Washington are usually elected. King County’s is not. The law required them to meet minimums the state already applied to appointed police chiefs, the Washington State Standard reported: at least five years of law-enforcement experience, no felony or gross misdemeanor conviction, an age of at least 25, and no record of conduct that would get a state peace-officer certification revoked. Candidates would have had to clear a background check. A sheriff who was not already certified would have had nine months after taking office to get that certification from the Criminal Justice Training Commission, down from a year. Failing the new requirements, or losing certification, would be grounds to leave office, with county officials appointing a replacement. The route voters already had, a recall, is rarely used. Final decisions on taking a certification away are made by five-member commission panels, and those decisions can be appealed. In its April accounts, the Standard said the panels include three civilians and two police officials.
On Friday, Schaller said the Legislature may set reasonable qualifications for the office of sheriff, which the state constitution creates, but that several of these went past that line. “The qualifications under Section 9 are so expansive that they cannot be upheld,” she said, according to FOX 13 and KHQ, both of which covered the hearing in Olympia. The Center Square reported that she called the new age rule not narrowly tailored, because it applies to sheriffs and not to other county elected officials. That account also said the five-year experience rule does not apply to a sheriff already in office unless that sheriff runs in another county, and that she said the exemption undercuts the claim that elected and appointed leaders were being held to the same standard. She granted summary judgment against Section 9.
She also threw out the part of the law that would have had the Washington State Patrol decide, by a background check, whether a sheriff candidate met the new tests. The Center Square reported that she called eligibility for public office a judicial job, and said the statute handed it to an executive agency without telling the patrol how to settle a disputed fact, without a required hearing, and without a real path to court review. “There are no set of circumstances where this provision can be constitutionally applied,” she said. On speech, she struck provisions that let the training commission deny or pull a certification based in part on affiliation with “extremist organizations.” “The term extremist does not have a settled meaning,” she said. She called those rules vague and content-based, and said they reached more political speech and association than the state’s interest in public trust required. She also struck a requirement that a sheriff candidate swear, under penalty of perjury, to keep that certification as a condition of holding the office. She compared it to an oath the Washington Supreme Court had already rejected, and said this one was broader.
Not every challenge succeeded. Schaller upheld Section 16, which limits what a person deputized by a sheriff may do unless that person is a certified peace officer. She said the sheriff still has the core power to deputize, and that the Legislature may limit what those deputies do. The Washington State Standard reported that Friday’s ruling does not appear to block the law’s standards for police chiefs, or its limits on law-enforcement volunteers. The cases are not finished on paper. The Center Square reported that the plaintiffs are to send proposed orders to the state by Oct. 15, and that Schaller set a presentation for Oct. 23 at 9 a.m. The Standard said a formal order is expected later this month. Mike Faulk, a spokesperson for Attorney General Nick Brown, said the office will appeal. The statement, given to The Center Square, KHQ, and FOX 13, was: “We respectfully disagree with the judge’s decision. We intend to appeal to defend this important state law.”
Friday’s ruling follows a temporary block from the same judge. On April 29, the day before the law’s main effective date, Schaller stopped much of it from applying to sheriffs so this year’s filing would not run under the new rules. “It is a fundamental right to run for elected office, and to vote for elected office, with very, very few exceptions,” she said then, and she found the Legislature “may have exceeded its constitutional authority.” The state asked the Washington Supreme Court to lift that order. On May 5, Deputy Commissioner Walter Burton refused. He wrote that keeping the older rules in place for the time being did not show the immediate harm that would justify a stay. The Standard reported that sheriffs in 35 of the state’s 39 counties were up for election, and that candidate filing was underway that week.
Two cases produced Friday’s decision. One was brought by four eastern Washington sheriffs: John Nowels of Spokane County, Glenn Blakeslee of Pend Oreille County, Brad Manke of Stevens County, and Ray Maycumber of Ferry County. The other was filed by the Washington State Sheriffs’ Association. The Standard reported that a dozen sheriffs challenged the law. Their lawyer, Mark Lamb, said after the ruling that democracy includes the chance voters will elect someone others dislike, and that the answer is not a commission empowered to remove an official for conduct it finds offensive. Walla Walla County Sheriff Mark Crider, who is retiring this year, said he and other sheriffs were “fairly satisfied,” and that the law “would’ve disenfranchised the voters.” Anne Levinson, a retired judge who helped draft the bill, wrote after the hearing that there is “great harm to the public and in particular to vulnerable individuals if top law enforcement officials are allowed to continue in office after having committed serious misconduct.” In court Friday, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Valore said voters trust sheriffs to do the job, and that the Legislature passed the bill so sheriffs would meet the same basic qualifications as other law-enforcement leaders.
Lovick has framed the bill as accountability. “This legislation is about accountability,” he said in a statement FOX 13 published. “As a former sheriff, I know that trust between law enforcement leaders and the communities they are sworn to protect is built on maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and accountability.” He said leaders would be held to the same standards of conduct they ask of every other officer. KHQ quoted him asking why appointed or elected leaders should not face the standards applied to the people who work for them. Ferguson signed with a reservation about the vacancy process and did not veto that piece. “It’s a serious step when someone’s being removed from office, speaking as an elected official,” he told reporters on April 1. He said he had pressed the sponsors on that point, that he might look at improving the process in the next session, and that he was confident the law could withstand a court challenge. Rep. Roger Goodman, D-Kirkland, who led the bill in the House, said lawmakers had worked to make it constitutional and that he expected it to be upheld.
Sources
- Tip (not a news source) — Hana Kim (@hanakimontv), Instagram Reel, 8:44 p.m. PT on Oct. 2, 2026. No transcript was available. The caption is the tip: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DeBHoGEyjRI/
- Washington State Standard — Jake Goldstein-Street, “Judge permanently blocks WA sheriff standards law,” Oct. 2, 2026, 1:23 p.m. PT: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/10/02/judge-permanently-blocks-wa-sheriff-standards-law/
- The Center Square — Austin Reed, “Judge strikes down key provisions of Washington sheriff law,” Oct. 2, 2026: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_a9713077-c6f2-4991-ba23-93d2678bce4c.html
- FOX 13 Seattle — Hana Kim, “WA sheriffs win lawsuit that challenged new state law,” Oct. 2, 2026, 7:17 p.m. PDT: https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/sheriffs-win-lawsuit-state-law
- KHQ — Heidi Meili, “Judge blocks parts of Washington sheriff standards law in Olympia,” Oct. 2, 2026: https://www.khq.com/news/judge-blocks-parts-of-washington-sheriff-standards-law-in-olympia/article_afc14f32-52ea-4ff9-93da-49ba15277fb9.html
- Washington State Standard — Jake Goldstein-Street, Ferguson signs the sheriff-standards law, April 1, 2026: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/04/01/ferguson-signs-controversial-law-tightening-standards-for-wa-sheriffs/
- Washington State Standard — Jake Goldstein-Street, temporary block, April 29, 2026: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/04/29/judge-blocks-washingtons-new-sheriff-standards-law/
- Washington State Standard — Jake Goldstein-Street, Supreme Court commissioner leaves the block in place, May 5, 2026: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/05/05/wa-supreme-court-rejects-states-attempt-to-unblock-sheriff-eligibility-law/
- Washington State Legislature — SB 5974 bill status, Chapter 258, Laws of 2026: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5974&Year=2026
- Session law — Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974, Chapter 258, Laws of 2026 (effective dates and vote lines on the enrolled act): https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5974-S2.SL.pdf
