Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller permanently struck down key provisions of Washington's new sheriff standards law on Friday, Oct. 2, ruling the requirements unconstitutional.

The decision blocks Senate Bill 5974's most contested sections, which would have required elected sheriffs statewide to meet the same eligibility standards as appointed police chiefs. The state plans to appeal.

For Thurston County residents, the ruling means the county sheriff's race will continue under existing rules. Voters, not a state commission, will decide who qualifies to serve.

What the law required

Gov. Bob Ferguson signed SB 5974 on April 1. The law raised the minimum age for sheriffs from 18 to 25, required at least five years of law enforcement experience, barred candidates with felony or gross misdemeanor convictions and mandated state certification. Sheriffs who failed to meet the standards or lost certification could be removed from office and replaced by county appointees.

Democrats passed the bill over opposition from Republican lawmakers. Sen. John Lovick, a Democrat from Snohomish County and former Snohomish County sheriff, was the primary sponsor.

What the judge found

Schaller spent about an hour delivering her ruling, Fox 13 reported, working through each challenged section of the complex law.

She acknowledged the Legislature has authority to set reasonable qualifications for the office of sheriff. But she found SB 5974 went too far on multiple fronts.

The age requirement was not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest because it applied to sheriffs but not other county elected officials, Schaller ruled.

She struck down a provision assigning the Washington State Patrol to conduct background checks on sheriff candidates, finding that determining eligibility for public office is a judicial function the law improperly handed to an executive-branch agency.

Schaller also found that provisions tying sheriff certification to affiliation with "extremist organizations" were unconstitutionally vague. She ruled the requirement that candidates certify under penalty of perjury they would maintain certification amounted to an unconstitutional oath.

"The qualifications under Section 9 are so expansive that they cannot be upheld," Schaller said during the ruling.

She did uphold Section 16, which limits what people deputized by a sheriff may do unless they are certified peace officers.

Plaintiffs claim victory; state to appeal

The ruling resolved two lawsuits: one from the Washington State Sheriffs' Association and another filed by sheriffs from Spokane, Pend Oreille, Stevens and Ferry counties, as The Center Square reported. Spokane County Sheriff John Nowels was among the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' attorney Mark Lamb said in an email after the hearing that the law "allows unelected bureaucrats to remove elected officials from office based on what they say, write, or who they associate with."

Attorney General Nick Brown's office defended the law in court. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Valore argued that the Legislature passed SB 5974 to ensure sheriffs meet the same basic qualifications as other law enforcement leaders. Spokesperson Mike Faulk said the office intends to appeal.

Retired judge Anne Levinson, who helped draft the law, said in an email 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 committing serious misconduct.

What happens next

Schaller had temporarily blocked much of SB 5974 on April 29, the day before it took effect. The state appealed that block to the Washington Supreme Court, but a court commissioner declined to lift it.

Now the formal court order is expected later in October, first reported by The Olympian. Schaller directed her clerk to set the cases for presentation on Oct. 23 at 9 a.m. Plaintiffs must provide proposed orders to defendants by Oct. 15, with a deadline of Oct. 20 for the parties to confer and submit changes.

The state's appeal of the permanent ruling will follow.