Outlawing Elected Sheriffs In Washington

You Must Stop HB 1399

Thurston County’s biggest city is Olympia, Washington State’s capitol.

Elected sheriffs are more independent and more effectively represent, and understand, the values of the people in their counties than sheriffs appointed by Washington’s governor or some other political body. A bill sitting in a Washington State House committee, HB1399, could change the entire landscape of the election process for county sheriffs and replace them with appointed sheriffs who are accountable only to politicians, not to We The People. You can tell your two state representatives and your state senator to vote “NO” by clicking on this link.

A careful reading of this 20 page bill reveals many troubling ways our overlords in Olympia will prevent the voters of each county from electing the sheriff of their choice. I will name just three:

1) Write-in candidates will no longer allowed. I find this very troubling because, in 2022, Pacific County got rid of a sheriff who was widely disliked for his failure to provide effective policing in many areas of the county & his lackadaisical attitude, and elected the write-in, Daniel Garcia, with 61% of the vote. The public is extremely happy with him. This bill is sneaky. It does not outlaw write-in candidates. That would be too honest. The public might notice. They merely put so many pre-filing requirements in place that a would-be candidate would need to start the pre-filing process at least a year in advance, maybe longer. The pre-filing time frame will be completely controlled by our overlords in Olympia. See Sections 8 and 10 of HB 1399.

2) When the sheriff’s position is vacant (will all the new rules, there will be more vacancies), the county commissioners will appoint the sheriff. See Section 9 of HB 1399. [NOTE: Left-leaning county commissioners dislike ELECTED sheriffs.] The Democrats wanted to give the power to appoint all sheriffs to the governor, but they knew there would be an uproar from We The People, so this is the next best thing in their minds. Chip, chip, chipping away at the county voters’ right to choose their sheriff, one bill at a time.

3) Section 8 further narrows the pool of candidates We The People will be allowed to elect as our county sheriff. It requires candidates to have “at least two years regular, uninterrupted, full-time law enforcement agency employment involving enforcement responsibilities with a government law enforcement agency.” Let’s think about that for a minute: In the bigger counties the sheriff’s duties are managerial, not patrolling. In other words, although he/she may carry a gun, they don’t it and don’t arrest people. Voters elect sheriffs from the pool of neighbors whom they trust. They may or may not meet the “two year” requirement. Keep in mind, our overlords in Olympia will interpret this requirement, not the voters. For example, what if the candidate has five years of experience, but that was 10 years ago?

The legislative summary of the bill, sponsored by Democrats, can be found here.

FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF AGREES WITH THURSTON COUNTY SHERIFF

DEMOCRAT ESTABLISHMENT HATES SHERIFFS

“In an era where government overreach, especially in Blue Jurisdictions, seems to grow by the day, the idea of abolishing elected sheriffs and replacing them with a centralized state controlled authoritarian police force should set off alarm bells for anyone who values local control, accountability, and personal freedoms. The sheriff is one of the last remaining law enforcement officials who answer directly to the people, this The Left hates. Taking that away and handing control to an unelected bureaucratic force isn’t just a bad idea, it’s a dangerous one.

Right now, sheriffs serve at the pleasure of the voters in their county. If they fail to protect their communities, abuse their power, or push policies that the people reject, they can be voted out. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. But imagine if, instead, every county’s law enforcement was dictated by a single, centralized force, answering not to the people, but to politicians in far-off offices.

Would a bureaucrat in a state capital really understand the needs of a rural farming community the same way a local sheriff would? Would a one-size-fits-all approach to policing work in both small towns and major cities? Of course not. When decision-making is centralized, communities lose their ability to shape how they are policed. And once that power is gone, it’s nearly impossible to get back.” Author unknown.

HITLER MOVED POLICE TO OTHER CITIES

Adolf Hitler knew that it would be harder for his police forces to arrest, abuse, stuff into cattle cars, et al, people they knew. That is human nature. Therefore, he moved the Berlin police to Munich, the Munich police to Heidelberg, etc.

“History offers countless examples of governments using centralized police forces to suppress dissent. When law enforcement is controlled at the local level, there are natural checks and balances—different communities can push back against unjust laws or policies. But when all policing is concentrated in a single authority, that power becomes ripe for abuse.

Think about it: If sheriffs had been replaced with a nationalized police force decades ago, how much easier would it have been for the government to silence civil rights activists, union organizers, or political opponents? The more centralized law enforcement becomes, the easier it is for those in power to use it as a weapon against the people.

There’s a reason why local law enforcement tends to work better than an outside force parachuting in. Sheriffs live in the same communities they serve. They shop at the same stores, send their kids to the same schools, and attend the same town meetings as their constituents. This connection fosters trust, and trust is essential for effective policing.

Under a centralized system, officers would be deployed wherever the government sees fit, with little to no personal connection to the people they’re tasked with protecting. When law enforcement becomes detached from the community, it stops being a service and starts being an occupying force. That’s not policing, that’s control.

The United States has had elected sheriffs for centuries, and the system works because it allows for direct democracy in law enforcement. If reform is needed in certain areas, that’s a conversation worth having, but scrapping the whole system in favor of centralized control? That’s a recipe for disaster.

Once law enforcement is taken out of local hands and placed under a centralized authority, it will never be given back. The best way to keep law enforcement accountable, responsive, and in touch with the needs of the people is to keep it local. America doesn’t need more government control it needs more community control. Keeping sheriffs elected and local is the best way to ensure that happens.” Author unknown

DECERTIFYING SHERIFFS

During the 2024 legislative session Democrats introduced a bill which would have allowed the governor to decertify elected sheriffs. It did not get out of committee. Democrats had planned to file it again during the 2025 legislative session, but filed HB 1399 instead. The details can be found in this article: