Washington State House Democrats pass a bill that would allow state agencies to decertify elected sheriffs

By lauraharris // 2025-03-10

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

House Democrats in Washington State have advanced a bill (HB 1399) that would allow state agencies to decertify elected sheriffs and set new certification standards for law enforcement leaders.
The bill would require sheriff candidates to undergo background checks before running for office and establish uniform eligibility and certification requirements, including law enforcement experience and training certification.
Its proponents argue it is necessary to ensure consistency and trust in law enforcement across the state, while opponents, including Republicans and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, question its constitutionality and potential impact on the existing system.
The bill's provisions, if passed, could have far-reaching implications for law enforcement in Washington State and potentially set a precedent for other states.
The bill's next steps include a floor debate scheduled by the Rules Committee, after which it would need approval by the full House and Senate, and ultimately the governor's signature to become law.

House Democrats in Washington State have advanced a bill that would allow state agencies to decertify elected sheriffs. House Bill 1399, which passed out of the House Appropriations Committee on Feb. 26, seeks to align certification standards for law enforcement leaders statewide. The bill would establish uniform eligibility and certification requirements for all law enforcement positions, including those held by elected sheriffs. (Related: Trump administration tackles illegal immigration: Sheriff Richard Mack calls for constitutional enforcement.) Most of the proposed changes focus on the eligibility of sheriff candidates, even before they announce their candidacy. One key requirement would be for candidates to undergo background checks before running for office. Under HB 1399, sheriffs would be required to enforce all state laws, regardless of federal conflicts, effectively eliminating any mention of the U.S. Constitution in this context; be at least 25 years old; have at least two years of law enforcement experience; obtain certification from the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC) within 12 months of assuming office; and pass background checks conducted by both the CJTC and the Washington State Patrol (WSP). This is noteworthy because, unlike sheriffs, state lawmakers are not subject to such investigations before being elected by the people. State Rep. Nicole Macri (D-District 43) from Seattle argued that the bill is necessary to ensure consistency and trust in law enforcement across the state. "Our law enforcement leaders, our chiefs, elected sheriffs or appointed sheriffs, are not required to be held to the same standards in terms of eligibility, training and certification as the officers who report to them," Macri said. "This bill requires that." However, it has raised eyebrows due to its provisions allowing state agencies to decertify elected sheriffs who fail to meet these new standards. This proposal would overhaul the eligibility and duties of sheriffs, police chiefs, marshals and volunteers. The next step for the bill is for the Rules Committee to schedule a floor debate. The outcome of this debate will determine whether the bill moves forward to the full House for a vote. If approved by the House and the Senate and signed into law, the bill could have far-reaching implications for law enforcement in Washington State, potentially setting a precedent for other states to follow.

Republicans question constitutionality of HB 1399

The proposal passed through committee without bipartisan support, with Republicans questioning its constitutionality and potential impact on the existing system. Republican lawmakers expressed concern that the bill is an overreach, citing the existing recall and investigatory processes for elected officials. For instance, State Rep. Travis Couture (R-District 35) from Allyn argued that sheriffs, as elected officials chosen directly by the people, should not be subject to stricter scrutiny than the voters intended. Couture contended that politicians should not assume they are "smarter" than the voters who elected these officials. "No one took our background checks," Couture said, "The people elected us." The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, particularly its Policy Director James McMahon, also testified against HB 1399 in February. "We are troubled that our planned meeting with the prime sponsor of the bill was canceled two days after we submitted a counter-proposal," McMahon said in Feb. 19. "We believe that at least two provisions of this bill violate sections of the Washington State Constitution." McMahon claimed that the bill contravenes provisions related to free elections and recalls, while another law enforcement advocate urged the state to respect the will of the voters. Visit BigGovernment.news for more similar stories. Watch Sheriff Richard Mack explaining the role of sheriffs like him in mass deportation efforts in this interview with Hannah Faulkner. This video is from the hannahfaulkner channel on Brighteon.com.

CITIZENS NEWS

Republicans question constitutionality of HB 1399

More related stories: