WATCH: Pierce County voters to decide between elected or appointed sheriff

(The Center Square) - A legal challenge aimed at keeping a Pierce County charter amendment off the Nov 3 ballot was rejected Friday by a Thurston County Superior Court judge.

The proposal that challengers hoped to keep off the ballot, asks Pierce County voters if they want to switch to having an appointed, rather than an elected sheriff, and remove Sheriff Keith Swank from office by Jan 1, 2027.

“The court did recognize that we had an argument and heard it," said Joan Mell, an attorney for the plaintiffs, in an interview after Friday's court hearing. "Unfortunately, what he said was we didn't meet the hurdle for relief pre-election, and it's a very high hurdle. The court's perception is that this charter amendment is just another opportunity for the people of Pierce [County] to kind of vote on what they want.”

Pierce County is one of a handful of counties in Washington that have a county charter, which Swank describes as a mini constitution. It sets up the structure, powers and rules for county government.

Every ten years, members of the Charter Review Commission, which consists of three elected representatives from each of the seven council districts review the charter and debate and settle on amendments to put before voters.

The commission spent months having public meetings considering dozens of potential amendments, but what dominated most of the public testimony were amendments to change the office of sheriff.

Sheriff Keith Swank believes the Charter Review Commission has targeted him because he’s been an outspoken critic of Washington laws, including boys playing in girls’ sports.

“They complained about my speech and about what I said at the commission, calling it hate speech,” Swank said, explaining the complaints referenced him saying he would not use people’s pronouns, even if voters were to approve an amendment concerning anti-discrimination language.

Charter Amendment 53 states:

“If approved, Sheriff shall cease to be an elective office, and the current elected term of office shall terminate early, effective January 1, 2027. The Sheriff will be appointed by the Executive and confirmed by a majority of the County Council.”

Hollie Rogge, former Pierce County Charter Commission member, who was a plaintiff in the challenge, told The Center Square that she is concerned about the precedent, noting comments from the Pierce County deputy attorney during Friday's hearing.

“She kept referencing local governance…the charter and they can do whatever they want but this is not just local governance when you are bypassing a state law recall process and inserting this other way to remove a duly elected person in office," Rogge said. "So, to me, this goes far beyond just local politics."

Pierce County voters will also see Amendment 54 on the Nov. 3 ballot related to the sheriff’s office.

Rogge Raises Transparency Concerns Over Proposed Ombudsman Office

Amendment 54 establishes a “new section in the Pierce County Charter that creates an executive department of Public Safety Ombuds to provide independent oversight of the Sheriff and Sheriff’s Office employees. Subject to limitations imposed by law, the Ombuds shall have authority, funding, staffing and resources to monitor all matters involving the Sheriff’s Office.

“It creates an ombuds office that gives authority to an unelected, appointed office that will have authority over safety issues, and they are not subject to public records disclosure,” Rogge said. “There was no fiscal note attached to this and it’s a whole new department. Spokane has an office like this, and it was like a million-dollar budget. In a time where we are coming into some fiscal concerns with our county budget, we are arguing this is very inappropriate.”

Mell told The Center Square, if voters in Pierce County ultimately decide to approve Amendment 53 the fight is far from over.

“We think it's a huge win just to make sure that the people know that this is a legitimate concern. And the court did not condemn it as an illegitimate concern. He condemned it as not meeting the high hurdle at this stage,” said Mell concerning the decision to allow Amendment 53 to appear on the Nov 3 ballot.

This story originally appeared on thecentersquare.com.