In WA, voters keep a controversial county sheriff in the saddle

Voters in one Washington state county want to keep electing the sheriff, even if they are not enamored with the one in the job today.

In another, they preserved their ability to know the partisan ties of candidates seeking the top legislative and executive positions.

And, in one of the state’s most populous cities, the electorate put the kibosh on double-dipping by the mayor and City Council members. 

These are among the high-profile reform measures decided Tuesday in a handful of cities and counties governed by a written charter. Each proposed charter amendment was drawn up by a citizen commission.

The most discussed of the batch was Pierce County’s Charter Amendment 53 to make the sheriff an appointed position rather than an elected one. King County is the only county with an appointed sheriff.

It wasn’t a popular idea as 68% of voters were rejecting the measure as of Friday. Had it passed, the county’s controversial sheriff, Keith Swank, would have been forced out of office on Jan. 1, 2027. Instead, he gets to complete the four-year term to which he was elected two years ago with just over 50% of the vote.

“I am very pleased with the result,” Swank said Thursday. “It means the people of Pierce County want to continue to exercise their right to vote for sheriff.”

He said he knows people who didn’t support him in 2024 voted against the measure. “It’s about the job, not the person in the job,” he said.

Voters in Pierce County were also turning down Charter Amendment 54 to establish a new board to provide independent oversight of the sheriff and sheriff’s department. Swank said he didn’t want it to pass “and wouldn’t cooperate if it did pass.”

In Snohomish County, an attempt to make the offices of county executive and county council nonpartisan was losing badly. 

Voters were opposing Proposition 3 by a margin of 70% to 30%. Had it passed, candidates running for council seats and the executive post next year would have done so without political party labels.

Jennifer Gregerson was a member of the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission who opposed the proposal amendment.

“To me it’s important to give voters all the information that we can and I think partisan identification is one piece of that picture,” said Gregerson, a Democrat activist and former mayor of Mukilteo. “I am just glad to see the voters in the county recognize that and they don’t want candidates to hide their beliefs.”

The state constitution allows, with some limits, a person to hold two elected offices simultaneously. Today, there are members of the state Legislature who also serve on school boards and hold county offices.

In Everett, the largest city in Snohomish County, that won’t be an option for members of the city council or the mayor.

Voters almost unanimously approved Proposition 1 to ban those elected city officials from simultaneously holding “any other elected public office at any level of government.” 

No county, state or federal office, nor school district, fire district, port district, public utility district or an office of another city or town. The only exception will be a precinct committee officer. The measure had 93% support on Friday.

A mayor or city council member can still run for another elected office, like the county council or the state Legislature. If they win, they would lose their city post when they are sworn in to the new job.

Randy Bolerjack served on the city charter review panel and backed this measure.

“Throughout Snohomish County, there are too many examples of politicians collecting elected offices,” he said. “Representatives in government should hold the trust of one elected position at a time.”

In southwest Washington, 82% of voters were approving Charter Amendment 19 to limit Clark County council members to three terms in office. After three consecutive terms, a person could sit out a full term and then could run for the office again.

“The policy intent is to balance two competing public interests: the value of accumulated experience in elected office and the benefit of periodic turnover that introduces new perspectives and maintains broader access to public service opportunities,” reads the explanation of the measure. “The inclusion of a one-term break preserves the ability of experienced individuals to return to service while preventing uninterrupted long-term incumbency.”