Municipal League of King County

OPPOSES

King County Charter Amendment No. 2 - Elections for Sheriff

1996 General Election Ballot

SUMMARY
The Metropolitan King County Council has proposed a change in the King County Charter allowing for the election of the county sheriff. The explanatory statement of the ballot measure issued by the county is as follows:

"The King County sheriff is currently appointed by and subject to removal by the King County Executive. If proposed Charter Amendment No. 2 is approved by the voters, the King County sheriff would be elected rather than appointed. Under the proposed charter amendment, the sheriff would be elected on a non-partisan basis for a four year term with the first election to be held at the November 1997 general election.

The elected county sheriff would continue to perform all of the current sheriff's duties specified by general law and would continue to administer the department of public safety. The department of public safety would continue to be an executive department subject to the civil service personnel system and would utilize the services of the administrative offices and the executive department, but it would not be abolished or combined with any other executive department or administrative office and could not have its duties decreased by the county council.

Candidates for the sheriff's position would have to be at least twenty-one years old, a US citizen, a King County resident and a registered voter in King County. The Metropolitan King County Council would have the authority to establish additional qualifications of the sheriff's office by ordinance."

Arguments For
Proponents of this ballot measure, including the Republican majority of the King County Council and the King County Police Officers Guild, argue that an elected sheriff would be more directly accountable to voters in law enforcement matters.

Proponents assert that during the budget process, an elected sheriff would be more aggressive in securing needed public safety resources, because he or she would be operating independently of the King County Executive, who might wish to make budget cuts.

Proponents note that across the country, appointed sheriffs are the clear exception. Nationally, only eleven counties have appointed sheriffs, while 3,085 county sheriffs are elected.

Proponents also contend that appointees may be from out of state, with no history or ties to the local community. Finally, proponents assert that voters have the wisdom and should be trusted to make the right choice from among candidates to assure a high level of competency and professionalism in the elected sheriff.

Arguments Against
Opponents contend that the King County sheriff's office was changed from an elected to an appointed position nearly 30 years ago because of corruption under the old system.

The King County sheriff is currently appointed by the King County executive, and confirmed by the county council. Opponents argue that appointments allow broad, and even nation-wide searches for the best qualified professional. Elections might not guarantee obtaining qualified candidates for voter approval.

Opponents of the measure argue that the ability of an elected sheriff to be more effective in the budget process is overstated. The county's resources are finite and limited, and the sheriff cannot create new money. An experienced professional appointed by the King County executive is more likely to be a more credible advocate in budget matters.

Opponents note that many suburban cities now contracting with King County for sheriff services are opposed to this measure. If they cancel their contracts, the results could be more inefficiency and a greater tax burden on King County residents.

Finally, opponents maintain that the sheriff's office should be free from the political distraction of re-election campaigns and the soliciting of campaign contributions.

MUNICIPAL LEAGUE RECOMMENDATION: NO

ANALYSIS
The process for choosing a sheriff has a long history of controversy in the United States. King County adopted the current method in 1969 by placing the sheriff's office under the county executive under the home rule charter. This resulted from the public's dissatisfaction with corruption and cronyism under the previous system.

Although only eleven counties in the US currently appoint their sheriffs, the majority of these tend to be large metropolitan counties, like King.

There seems to be no perfect system for dealing with perceived deficiencies in the sheriff's office. Supporting or opposing arguments could easily be used by either side. The stated drawbacks or benefits are not generally a direct result of appointing or electing the sheriff.

In an election free from influences of money and partisan pressures it is possible for well-informed voters to choose a candidate who is a highly qualified professional. On the other hand, the King County executive is also directly accountable to county voters for law enforcement and can quickly take corrective action with an appointee who is not performing satisfactorily.

The current sheriff has served successfully under several county executives from both parties. There is no assurance that electing the sheriff would result in desired performance improvements.

Changing the method for choosing the sheriff every 20 or 30 years is not the answer. Instead, the King County Executive and Council should consider introducing objective measurements for public safety performance and efficiencies. It should be noted that if this ballot measure is defeated, there is another opportunity to review and possibly change the process of choosing the county sheriff in the upcoming King County Charter review, scheduled for 1997.