by Jake Goldstein-Street, Washington State Standard
February 12, 2026
The Washington state Senate approved legislation Thursday to set stricter eligibility standards for sheriffs and other police leadership, weeks after a sheriff’s comments on the bill left some lawmakers feeling threatened.
The contentious measure also looks to give the state a path to remove elected sheriffs from office if they don’t meet the new requirements and limit the use of “posses” of police volunteers that some sheriffs deploy.
After roughly two hours of debate, Senate Bill 5974 passed on a party-line 30-19 vote, with no Republican support. Democrats say it’s a necessary measure to hold sheriffs and chiefs accountable and help build public confidence in police.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. John Lovick, is a former Snohomish County sheriff and longtime state trooper. He noted other states, including Texas and Georgia, have passed similar legislation. He said he thinks the bill will “continue the positive and productive law enforcement culture in our state.”
“No one who fails to uphold the integrity of the law should enforce it upon others,” said Lovick, a Democrat from Mill Creek.
Republicans believe the bill is an override of the will of voters and state overreach into the power of local governments. They called it a “solution in search of a problem.”
“If voters hire the sheriff,” said Sen. Chris Gildon, R-Puyallup, “voters ought to be able to fire the sheriff, not a commission in Olympia.”
Sheriffs and police chiefs are also staunchly opposed.
The legislation now heads to the House.
What it would do
Currently, appointed police chiefs have to be U.S. citizens with a high school diploma or equivalent who haven’t been convicted of a felony or a recent lesser crime involving “moral turpitude.” They also have to be certified as a peace officer and have at least two years of full-time law enforcement experience.
Elected sheriffs don’t have the same requirements, but they have to get certified by the state Criminal Justice Training Commission within a year of taking office. The governor appoints the commission’s board.
The bill the Senate passed would add new eligibility requirements for police chiefs and extend all of them to sheriffs. They’d need to be at least 25 years old and have at least five years of law enforcement experience, instead of two.
This requirement would disqualify the sitting sheriff in southwest Washington’s Pacific County, Daniel Garcia, a naval veteran who won office without prior law enforcement experience.
Sen. Jeff Wilson, R-Longview, called Pacific County the bill’s potential “first victim.”
Under the bill, sheriffs and police chiefs also couldn’t have been convicted of any gross misdemeanor or engaged in conduct that could get their certification denied or revoked. They would also need to undergo a background check, and it would move up the timeline for getting certified after taking office from 12 months to nine.
Notably, if sheriffs are decertified or no longer meet the eligibility criteria, they would have to vacate their elected office. County officials would appoint a replacement. Currently, voters can turn to the rarely used recall process if they want to remove their sheriff.
The state legislation would also explicitly note in Washington law that sheriffs have a duty to uphold and enforce the state’s constitution and laws, as well as uphold the U.S. Constitution.
In a tacit rebuke of their colleagues across the aisle, Senate Republicans filed a resolution Thursday seeking to amend the state constitution’s requirements for legislators to match the proposed eligibility mandates for sheriffs and police chiefs.
Then there’s the posse issue.
Many law enforcement agencies develop teams of volunteers who aren’t sworn officers and haven’t gone to the police academy.
Many have benign duties, like parking enforcement, parks and recreation assistance and search and rescue. But for some sheriff’s offices, especially in rural areas of Washington like Klickitat County, they can take on more expansive roles without much oversight.
Washington law has few guidelines for these posses.
The legislation would make clear that sheriffs can’t use untrained volunteers to enforce criminal statutes or civil immigration laws, engage in pursuits, use force, carry weapons or use surveillance technology, among other things. They could still assist with administrative support and other more routine duties. They also must be distinguishable from commissioned officers.
This provision is, in part, a response to the “constitutional sheriffs” movement that has promoted building these posses. The movement is rooted in the idea that sheriffs hold supreme law enforcement power in their individual jurisdictions, even compared to elected officials from higher levels of government.
To access the new $100 million grant program to boost police hiring that lawmakers passed last year, agencies had to have policies prohibiting volunteers from enforcing criminal laws.
Republicans offered a number of amendments on the Senate floor, but Democrats accepted none of them.
Most of the bill’s provisions would take effect April 30. The restrictions on volunteers would become law Jan. 1.
Similar legislation in the House last year didn’t get a floor vote.
This year, another bill in the House took a different approach from the Senate measure approved Thursday. It wouldn’t have allowed sheriffs who aren’t certified by the state as peace officers to do regular police work. And if they were decertified for conduct after taking office, it would start recall proceedings against that sheriff.
That legislation, which had bipartisan support, stalled early in the 2026 session.
Bills focused on police accountability have been a tough sell in recent years in Olympia.
And much of the police accountability energy in the Legislature this year has been spent on regulating federal immigration enforcement. This bill is one of the few focused on local law enforcement that stands a chance.
‘Are you prepared?’
Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank drew ire from lawmakers and the state organization representing police leadership due to his testimony on the legislation last month.
He questioned the authority of lawmakers to regulate him, specifically referring to a controversial bill to bar law enforcement from wearing masks. He vowed that if they tried to remove him from office, thousands of his constituents would surround the county office building in Tacoma.
“I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I, and they, are prepared,” Swank said in his testimony. “Are you prepared?”
Afterward, Tacoma Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, a Democrat, called Swank “an embarrassment to the profession.” Lovick, the bill’s sponsor, compared him to segregationist Alabama police leader Eugene “Bull” Connor.
Sen. Manka Dhingra, D-Redmond, read from Swank’s testimony during the Senate floor debate Thursday. She said it made clear the necessity of the legislation.
The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs condemned Swank’s comments as “inflammatory” and said it would initiate proceedings to consider expelling him from the organization, despite its own frustrations with the legislation.
The association’s board hasn’t decided on the future of Swank’s membership. There’s no timeline for a decision, an association spokesperson said Thursday.
As of last month, Swank has multiple open cases at the Criminal Justice Training Commission that threaten his certification. Under the legislation, his decertification would mean his removal from office.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: [email protected].