Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Court blocks 5-year experience requirement in SB 5974 for sheriff candidates
Summary
A judge granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the part of Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974 that required most sheriff candidates to have five years of full-time law-enforcement experience, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on constitutional grounds and that they would suffer irreparable harm.
A Washington superior court on May 8 granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of section 9.1(h) of Second Substitute Senate Bill 5974, the part of the law that would have required most candidates for county sheriff to have at least five years of full-time law-enforcement experience.
The presiding judge said she had reviewed all filings and case law and concluded the plaintiffs — the Washington State Sheriffs Association and two prospective candidates — showed a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims. “I find that the plaintiffs clearly have a well grounded fear of immediate invasion of their rights,” the court said, describing the injury as the loss of the opportunity to file during the single filing week in May 2026.
The injunction, the judge added, was warranted because the statute treated sitting sheriffs differently from other candidates, undermining the “general and uniform” requirement of Article 11, section 5 of the Washington Constitution. The court also found the plaintiffs had no adequate remedy at law because money damages could not undo the lost opportunity to qualify for the 2026 ballot.
Plaintiffs’ counsel Mister Ard argued at the hearing that the Washington Constitution can provide greater protection than the federal baseline and that the five-year rule — together with a grandfather clause for incumbents — could leave ballots in small counties with only a single candidate. “This bill decides those elections,” Ard said, urging strict scrutiny for limits on the right to seek office.
Freeman Hawley, representing the state through the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, told the court the statute is a reasonable, public-safety–oriented qualification and that plaintiffs had not shown they are likely to prevail on the merits or that they face irreparable harm. Hawley pointed to precedents permitting the legislature to fill constitutional silence with reasonable qualifications and argued severing any problematic clause would be an appropriate remedy.
The judge weighed those positions and relied on Washington case law addressing candidate eligibility and privileges under the state constitution. She said longstanding precedent favors preserving eligibility to stand for office unless a compelling state interest is narrowly advanced and that, on the record before her, the equal-application and privileges-and-immunities concerns were persuasive.
The court enjoined the effectiveness of section 9.1(h) of SB 5974 pending further proceedings and directed the parties to prepare a proposed order spelling out the scope of relief. The ruling preserves the plaintiffs’ ability to file a declaration of candidacy for the 2026 cycle while the litigation proceeds.
Next steps: the parties will confer on the form of an order for the court to sign; further proceedings on the merits of the constitutional challenge will continue in this case.