Voters may evict the sheriff from office in Pierce County, make Snohomish County Council seats nonpartisan and bar residents from serving on the Everett City Council and in the Legislature, even though the Washington state Constitution allows it.
These are among the slew of significant and controversial changes for local governments to be decided Nov. 3 that are receiving far less attention than contests for state Supreme Court seats and statewide initiatives.
The local measures are the handiwork of citizen commissions in the handful of Washington cities and counties governed by a charter. Commissioners, who are elected, have wide latitude to suggest alterations to the manner and structure of the respective local government.
In line with the state constitution, seven counties and 10 cities have adopted charters that undergo review once-a-decade by a citizen commission. Proposed changes require voter approval.
Here are a few charter amendments voters will decide.
Law and order
Keith Swank’s future as sheriff of Pierce County in western Washington is in the hands of an electorate that put him in office two years ago.
Charter Amendment 53 would make the sheriff an appointed position rather than an elected one. That person would be chosen by the county executive and confirmed by the County Council. If the measure passes, Swank, who was narrowly elected in 2024 to a four-year term, would be out of office on Jan. 1, 2027. King County is the only county with an appointed sheriff.
Swank could be appointed and confirmed. But that’s unlikely as he has publicly butted heads with other elected Pierce County leaders including County Executive Ryan Mello.
He’s incited anger among some in the community for his controversial social media posts, desire to work more closely with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on deportation efforts than a state law allows, and his views on an array of social issues, including support for a statewide initiative to bar transgender girls from playing girls sports.
A related measure, Charter Amendment 54, would create a new Public Safety Ombuds Office to provide independent oversight of the sheriff and sheriff’s department.
New ground rules for electeds
In Snohomish County, the state’s third most populous, there is a push to ditch political party labels for elected county offices and the people running to serve in them.
Under Proposition 3, “all candidates for a Snohomish County elected office appear on the ballot without a political party designation and that all elected county offices be non-partisan offices.”
If approved, it would be phased in starting next year with the two council seats and the county executive’s position up for election. It would apply for the other three council seats when they are on the ballot in 2029.
Several Snohomish County offices are already nonpartisan. These include treasurer, auditor, assessor, sheriff and clerk.
This measure split the commission along party lines with Republicans using their majority to advance it over the objections of Democratic members.
With the county’s Democrat-leaning electorate, Republicans have struggled to win countywide offices. They hold two of the seats on the County Council. Some Democrats view the shedding of party identification as a not-so-veiled attempt to boost Republicans’ chances to win the county executive contest next year.
Meanwhile, in Everett, the largest city in Snohomish County, the charter review commission put Proposition 1 on the ballot. If passed, it would prohibit mayors and city council members 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 is a precinct committee officer.
A mayor or council member could run for another office, like a state legislative seat. If they win, they would be deemed to have vacated their city post once they are sworn in to the new gig.
State Rep. Mary Fosse, D-Everett, served on the City Council, when she won her seat in the House in 2022. She did not seek reelection last year.
Several state lawmakers now hold local offices, including state Reps. Sam Low, R-Lake Stevens, and Strom Peterson, D-Edmonds who are members of the Snohomish County Council.
In southwest Washington, Charter Amendment 19 would limit Clark County council members to three terms in office. However, once they sit out a full term, they can seek to return to office.
“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.”
In Clallam County, the behavior of elected officials is the subject of Charter Amendment 2. If approved, it would establish a three-person board to review complaints of alleged violations of the county’s code of ethics by elected county officials.
Money matters
Raising taxes could get a little tougher for leaders of Snohomish and Clark counties.
The Clark County Council would need a supermajority of its five members to raise taxes under Charter Review Amendment 25. It defines supermajority as a minimum of two-thirds support, which would be four of the five members.
In Snohomish County, Proposition 5 would raise the bar as well. It would require a similar supermajority of four of the five-member county council to assess, levy or increase any tax. If approved, it would take effect on Jan. 1, 2027.
It would not apply for existing taxes that come up for renewal and are not increasing. Fees, rates and charges, and special assessments would not be considered a tax subject to this requirement.
Supporters, writing in the Snohomish County voters’ pamphlet, argue the amendment “simply raises the consensus standard. When every dollar matters, Proposition 5 ensures careful consideration and broad support before asking struggling residents to pay more.”
Opponents counter that it will put too much power in the hands of a council minority.
“When the few can overrule the many, public participation carries less weight, public trust is diminished, and the democratic process is undermined,” they wrote.
