Started by Eden Rose
Feb 1, 2026
Feb 1, 2026
9
Counterargument to Sheriff Peter's recent News and Views post
Feb 1, 2026
After reading the opinions shared by Sheriff Eric Peter recently over on the News and Views page, I became interested in the proposed legislation and would like to offer a counterargument. His statement did not provide enough information to make an informed decision for those interested in lobbying these bills.
What SB 5974 would do:
*Require a candidate for sheriff to complete a background check to be eligible to be on the ballot. This information would be made public to the voters thereby allowing us to make more informed decisions.
*Raise the age of eligibility for sheriff from 18 to 25 years of age.
*Limit the activities of deputized volunteers who are not certified peace officers.
*Allow decertification of a sheriff by the professional board responsible for peace officer training and certification to trigger a vacancy of the position after a due diligence process involving the courts.
This last point is where much of the debate has centered, because under this legislation, a vacancy in the sheriffs office would be appointed by our elected officials, rather than having to go through a laborious and expensive recall vote process. This is being equated with “loss of voting rights.” However, it does not affect our ability to vote for the sheriff outside this particular scenario.
(In some counties and even states, sheriff is always an appointed position by elected servants, which is a model that allows for a greater pool of qualified applicants, rather than a limited pool of only those who have the funding or resources to run a campaign).
As it stands, voters can decide to give a badge, gun, and a great deal of authority to someone who is less qualified than their subordinates, while they do not have an easy way of removing that authority in the case of gross misconduct.
A prime example of this, and a serious reason to consider this legislation, is seen in Peirce county’s current situation with Sheriff Keith Swank. Swank has several filed complaints against him (he was set to be fired for misconduct from Seattle PD in the past but apparently voters were unaware). The Sheriff and Police Chief Association are moving to remove him from their organization. Perhaps most alarmingly, Swank has threatened insurrection should he be decertified. He does not respect the constitutional authority of our elected lawmakers, and believes he has the authority to act with total impunity based on having won some votes. All this and no recall in sight. Meanwhile he works to build a coalition of people to support an extremist group called “constitutional sheriffs.’ In their fantasy world, the elected sheriff has complete authority to deputize an army of militia members to support whatever racist or fascist agenda they may have, and nobody can stop them.
This is a way scarier scenario to me than having to trust the professional board’s decision to decertify, and our elected officials to appoint an interum sheriff until the next election. If recalls were easier, Swank would already be long gone, but instead the residents of Peirce county are at the mercy of his insanity and subject to public safety issues that have arisen. Knowing the world we now live in, this is a scenario that is likely to happen again, and we need to be able to protect ourselves and add layers of accountability.
While a separate piece of legislation, HB 2387 would eliminate the signature gathering requirements of the recall process, it doesnt do nearly enough to protect us from incompetent, unconstitutional, corrupt, or criminal behaviors from someone who has an incredible amount of power over civilians in what should be a nonpartisan position. While I would support HB 2387 if that were all that was on the table, I would prefer to pass SB 5974 instead.
If you would like to go over to Sheriff Peter’s recent News and Views post, you can find links for lobbying each of the propsed bills by registering support or opposition, and making public comment.
What SB 5974 would do:
*Require a candidate for sheriff to complete a background check to be eligible to be on the ballot. This information would be made public to the voters thereby allowing us to make more informed decisions.
*Raise the age of eligibility for sheriff from 18 to 25 years of age.
*Limit the activities of deputized volunteers who are not certified peace officers.
*Allow decertification of a sheriff by the professional board responsible for peace officer training and certification to trigger a vacancy of the position after a due diligence process involving the courts.
This last point is where much of the debate has centered, because under this legislation, a vacancy in the sheriffs office would be appointed by our elected officials, rather than having to go through a laborious and expensive recall vote process. This is being equated with “loss of voting rights.” However, it does not affect our ability to vote for the sheriff outside this particular scenario.
(In some counties and even states, sheriff is always an appointed position by elected servants, which is a model that allows for a greater pool of qualified applicants, rather than a limited pool of only those who have the funding or resources to run a campaign).
As it stands, voters can decide to give a badge, gun, and a great deal of authority to someone who is less qualified than their subordinates, while they do not have an easy way of removing that authority in the case of gross misconduct.
A prime example of this, and a serious reason to consider this legislation, is seen in Peirce county’s current situation with Sheriff Keith Swank. Swank has several filed complaints against him (he was set to be fired for misconduct from Seattle PD in the past but apparently voters were unaware). The Sheriff and Police Chief Association are moving to remove him from their organization. Perhaps most alarmingly, Swank has threatened insurrection should he be decertified. He does not respect the constitutional authority of our elected lawmakers, and believes he has the authority to act with total impunity based on having won some votes. All this and no recall in sight. Meanwhile he works to build a coalition of people to support an extremist group called “constitutional sheriffs.’ In their fantasy world, the elected sheriff has complete authority to deputize an army of militia members to support whatever racist or fascist agenda they may have, and nobody can stop them.
This is a way scarier scenario to me than having to trust the professional board’s decision to decertify, and our elected officials to appoint an interum sheriff until the next election. If recalls were easier, Swank would already be long gone, but instead the residents of Peirce county are at the mercy of his insanity and subject to public safety issues that have arisen. Knowing the world we now live in, this is a scenario that is likely to happen again, and we need to be able to protect ourselves and add layers of accountability.
While a separate piece of legislation, HB 2387 would eliminate the signature gathering requirements of the recall process, it doesnt do nearly enough to protect us from incompetent, unconstitutional, corrupt, or criminal behaviors from someone who has an incredible amount of power over civilians in what should be a nonpartisan position. While I would support HB 2387 if that were all that was on the table, I would prefer to pass SB 5974 instead.
If you would like to go over to Sheriff Peter’s recent News and Views post, you can find links for lobbying each of the propsed bills by registering support or opposition, and making public comment.
Comment by Mike Colyar
Feb 5, 2026
Feb 5, 2026
3
The problem in Pierce County hasn't been the only one in our state in recent years. We had a situation in Mason County where an out of control county commissioner and a sheriff created a sitcom level problem wherein the commissioner got to ride around as a deputy with no qualifications whatsoever and even participated in law enforcement activities. Load ... Read All
Comment by Tracy Collins
Feb 3, 2026
Feb 3, 2026
2
thank you Lynn for your clear and concise plea for oversight and accountability in this time of such authoritarian excess across our country.
When people act appropriately, there is no need to fear accountability.
When people act appropriately, there is no need to fear accountability.
Comment by Lyn Sorensen
Feb 2, 2026
Feb 2, 2026
22
Eden makes some very good points about the current problems with appointed sheriffs. If I may, I would like to expand on the situation she references in Tacoma.
The previous sheriff before SWANK was caught making false accusations and lying to his own police. That sheriff, Ed Troyer, made an emerge ... Read All
The previous sheriff before SWANK was caught making false accusations and lying to his own police. That sheriff, Ed Troyer, made an emerge ... Read All