Pierce voters get chance to fix prosecutor elections. Now let them kill sheriff elections
Local-only election years often get a bad rap for having tepid public interest, especially when compared with the train wreck of a presidential election that held us spellbound in 2020.
But not this year. Not in the 253 area code. Not when the Pierce County Council may send a four-pack of measures to voters this fall that could limit — or eliminate — your choices for local offices for years to come.
The Pierce County prosecutor would still be elected but in a nonpartisan format. Meantime, two other offices — sheriff and auditor — could be dropped from the roster of elected jobs, instead becoming appointees of the county executive. A third post, assessor-treasurer, is up in the air.
As we see it, two of the proposed Pierce County charter amendments are no-brainers.
It makes sense to liberate officers of the court from the bad optics of political jockeying. If judges don’t run as Democrats or Republicans, why should prosecutors?
Three years ago Mary Robnett ran without a party label against Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist, the embattled two-term Democrat incumbent. Things worked out quite well for her (and the prosecutor’s office).
She’s now recommending the amendment jointly with County Executive Bruce Dammeier. That should give it the oomph it lacked when previous councils flirted with the idea.
“In 2018, I chose to run as a non-partisan and told audiences all over the county, ‘Crime isn’t partisan, and justice shouldn’t be political.’ That message obviously resonated with voters,” Prosecutor Robnett told us by email Tuesday.
The need to make the sheriff an appointed post also couldn’t be more clear.
Last year’s poor field of candidates to replace retiring Sheriff Paul Pastor was eye-opening. The embarrassing early tenure of Ed Troyer, who’s under state criminal investigation after his Tacoma confrontation with a Black newspaper carrier, has confirmed our worst fears.
The other two changes seem less urgent and may fuel unease among voters that their essential democratic role is being diminished.
Council Chair Derek Young, D-Gig Harbor, is behind a draft proposal this week to make three posts appointed. He told us Tuesday he’s reconsidering one of them (assessor-treasurer) since there’s nobody fiercely advocating for it.
On Tuesday the council unanimously approved advancing the nonpartisan prosecutor question to the Nov. 2 ballot. The others will be up for discussion over the next month.
As for taking the sheriff off the ballot starting in 2024, we’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Electing top law enforcement leaders runs counter to the demands of highly professionalized public safety agencies. No municipal police chiefs in the South Sound are elected, nor is the chief of the Washington State Patrol.
A county executive, like a mayor or governor, should be able to hire the most qualified person from a national talent pool; be nimble in adapting to community expectations, like use-of-force reform and racial justice; and fire a sheriff who’s in way over his head.
But removing two other offices from direct voter oversight isn’t an open-and-shut case.
Pierce County Auditor Julie Anderson raised good arguments for it in a recent TNT op-ed; she said making her office appointed would insulate it against extremists who continue to polarize elections and perpetuate fraud myths.
For the last decade Pierce County has been blessed with a pair of competent elected administrators serving as auditor and assessor-treasurer: Anderson and Mike Lonergan. But neither can run again due to term limits; she’s out at the end of 2022, he’s done in 2024.
That’s why now is a logical time to switch them to appointed positions, Young told us. For one thing, it divorces the decision from the appearance of targeting the current office holder — a luxury we don’t have with Troyer.
Young pointed out that they’re largely technical, managerial jobs with little “wiggle room” to set policy.
Pierce County voters haven’t elected a coroner or county clerk for decades. So why not grow the list of appointees who must answer every day to the county executive?
Voters, of course, may say no. They may perceive it to be a legislative/executive power grab. Or they may think it’s too much all at once.
The beauty of the Pierce County charter is that voters are the ultimate decision makers, even if they wisely decide to delegate some authority.
However it shakes out, we trust the people of the 253 to reach the right verdict.
This story was originally published June 22, 2021 at 4:40 PM.