Washington In Focus Daily | 3.06.26 | Dems Change Income Tax Bill & Sheriff Decertification Passes

In 2024, a truck crashed into Canaw in Moresque, where I work.

146 of our dogs needed homes fast.

We asked for help on Facebook.

Our story spread through WhatsApp messages and Instagram reposts.

Immediately, people stepped up and just six hours later,

every dog was fostered.

I'll never forget how our community showed up for us.

Learn how over 3.5 billion people connect to what matters

with meta at meta.com slash community.

Here's a shift worth noting.

Better health care is care that meets patients where they are.

United health group is bringing it directly to living rooms.

This is a win for patients managing chronic conditions.

And here's the interesting thing.

By closing those care gaps, administering in-home exams

and identifying risks earlier, more diseases can be prevented

and patient outcomes can improve.

In 2025 alone, United Health Group patients

received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at UnitedHealthGroup.com slash commitment.

It is March the 6th and less than a week remains

in the 2026 legislative session on Carling Johnson,

Washington State Government Reporter for the Center Square.

And this is Washington Infocus Daily.

And today, we got a new version of the income tax bill

unveiled this morning by Representative April Berg,

being the prime sponsor of this new version.

Governor Ferguson already came out endorsing it.

No doubt may have been in on this alternate proposal,

not yet scheduled for a vote,

but we're keeping a close eye on it.

House members got very little sleep again up until after 1.30

this morning, voting on Senate Bill 5974,

the Sheriff Decertification Bill.

And in today's episode, we're going to be spending

quite a bit of time talking about that.

GOP members tried to make it how they put it less bad

with amendments that were summarily dismissed.

The measure did ultimately pass early this morning.

And I went to the office of Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank,

met him in his Tacoma office to talk about this.

If you've watched this story at all,

develop over the last couple of months,

he became really the face for opposition to this bill

when he gave intentionally provocative testimony.

So what are his thoughts now that this has passed?

You're going to see those in just a moment.

We were the first to sit down with him

and give his reaction upon passage of this bill.

And my colleagues, T.J. Martinel and Tim Klauser

are going to bring you a discussion

of what they've done in Spokane this week.

This is another offshoot of the pushback

in some communities like Spokane

to the federal immigration and customs enforcement actions

that we've seen across the country.

Basically trying to say, you might own a space,

you might have a private office space of your own.

You're not allowed to run it out for ice purposes anymore.

There's other areas in the city that they're making

enforcement free zones, basically, where ice cannot operate.

Whether or not that's constitutional remains to be seen,

but my colleagues, T.J. and Tim will be getting into that.

So let's dive in.

Quick update first this morning on the latest version

of the income tax bill.

We got that this morning,

sponsors representative April Berg

and her version offered now does kind of align more

with what the governor has said he wants.

More money into early learning programs,

increased assistance for lower income families,

and the elimination of the sales tax

on a greater number of consumer products.

This is, of course, the overhaul

of the so-called millionaires tax.

And in case you haven't been paying attention,

this is the set of bill six, three, four, six,

a 9.9% tax on income in excess of a million dollars.

So if you make 1.2 million dollars,

the $200,000 you make above a million,

not just you as a private individual,

but a household combined income,

on that $200,000 would be taxed

at that nearly 10% amount.

And governor Ferguson's already pledged this morning

right after this alternate version came out.

He said, hey, I'm ready to sign this thing.

So certainly behind the scenes,

there's been some collaboration

between the governor and majority Democrats

on this legislation.

It also does include a further expansion

of the credit for low income families

aligned with what the governor said that he wants.

So we'll see where this goes.

It was earlier this week,

you may recall that governor Ferguson came out,

said, he said a letter to supporters and donors

that said, I'm gonna hold off on this

maybe until 2027,

unless the version that passes the house

includes more of what he wanted.

And that we've still got a handful of house Democrats

that are basically saying, we're not gonna support this

at all, some including representative Amy Wallin

who offered alternate legislation,

Democrat from Kirkland.

She wants the people's voice to be heard on this.

She says it absolutely would require a constitutional

amendment or she won't get on board.

She's not the only Democrat, she's been the most vocal,

openly vocal about this,

but there are several other Democrats that have said the same.

They want the people's voice to be heard in this.

They think a constitutional amendment

is the only way to go.

So whether or not this new version

from Representative Berg is gonna get enough support

from Democrats to get across the finish line

remains to be seen.

All right, so item number two today,

and this is where we're gonna spend the bulk of today's episode.

It was, I think just before 130 this morning

that debate on the sheriff's certification bill

concluded and it was signed into law,

not a single Republican supported.

And at least four Democrats, I think from my last count

joined all the Republicans in opposition,

but of course the majority has enough of a majority

to pass that even without some of their members

being in support.

This is Senate Bill 5947.

It allows the state to remove an elective,

an elected sheriff.

They started debate early on Thursday evening,

and as I mentioned, it was nearly 130 in the morning

before they were done.

I think it was close to eight hours of debate

on amendment after amendment after amendment,

all those rebuffed Republican broad amendments

and the majority basically pushed back on all of those.

So the final version that ended up being adopted

was offered by Representative Roger Goodman.

He took some elements out of the bill,

but what pass still does allow for removal

of an elected sheriff from office

by the Criminal Justice Training Commission.

And remember, almost all of those members of the CJTC

are appointed by the governor.

I'm pretty sure there's like 21 members,

don't quote me on that, but I think there's 21 members

and 19 of the 21 are appointed by the governor.

So one could surmise that if you've got

the Criminal Justice Training Commission

deciding who can even be a candidate for a sheriff

to get out a ballot and get elected,

and who can decide if somebody's social media posts

as a sheriff are offensive in their opinion enough

to disqualify them from office,

this is a pretty big deal.

Outside of probably the income tax,

this is, in my opinion, the most significant piece

of legislation that is moving forward

in this legislative session.

So here's Representative Roger Goodman

arguing support for his alternate bill

on the House floor Thursday evening.

This bill will build confidence

and community trust

between community and law enforcement,

especially our law enforcement leaders.

Our law enforcement leaders should be subject

to the same eligibility, requirements, qualifications,

and accountability measures as those who work for them,

or maybe even greater, a higher bar.

This bill provides that the core duty of the sheriff

is to enforce, is to uphold the US Constitution,

uphold and enforce the state constitution,

and enforce the laws duly enacted by this legislature

as interpreted by the state Supreme Court.

As I mentioned, Republicans had dozens of amendments,

hours of debate on those.

I just actually told by a member earlier in the day,

Thursday that they thought they might be able to kill the bill.

That was his words that obviously did not pan out

for those in opposition.

But here are two of the Republican members

urging a no vote on this just ahead

of the early Friday morning adoption of this bill.

There's nothing wrong with the current state of our sheriffs

here in Washington.

They can't be fixed at the next ballot box

if the voters choose to put somebody else in that position.

There is no necessity for this bill.

Second, this bill fails the constitutional question.

It raises novel questions about the ability

to remove a sheriff from their duly elected position,

the position to describe an article 11 section five

of our Washington state constitution,

creating an entirely new route to remove them separate

and apart from the vacancy route that has existed

since our state's inception.

Third, it fails the question of public trust.

When voters send an individual to a position of trust,

whether it's you or me, Madame Speaker,

they anticipate that we will be able to fill out our position

without being removed arbitrarily by an unaccountable bureaucracy

often located hundreds of miles away.

And I stand before you, a proud past sheriff

that has sworn on oath many times each time I was elected.

But prior to that, Madame Speaker,

as a law enforcement officer, I swore that same oath.

But when you step in to swear the oath

of sheriff, Madame Speaker, it's a surreal thing.

Stepping into this house has been one of the greatest honors

I've ever experienced.

But there's a separation between the two

because of the heaviness that the elected sheriff carries

and the responsibility.

It's not to be taken lightly.

To say I'm disappointed is probably an understatement.

And I will be voting no.

But I commit to you this.

I'm thankful for the member from the 45th

and the sponsor of this bill,

because we did a lot of work in the interim.

But this is not the answer to what they say is we're seeking.

But I'm committed to move forward to make law enforcement

in the state of Washington to the best of the nation.

But for now, Madame Speaker, I ask that you vote no,

because this is not right.

We've got a lot of work to do.

So this morning I had a chance to sit down

with Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank

in his Tacoma office.

If you saw it on the internet,

his testimony kind of blew up the internet early in session

when he basically said, you know,

just try and remove me from office.

My supporters are going to surround this office

and protect me.

It was intentionally provocative.

He told me because that's how much he opposes this bill.

He is a Trump supporter.

Been very open about that.

He's very pro-immigration enforcement.

He's been outspoken against some

of the state's transgender policies.

And that's why a lot of people have called this bill

the anti-Keith Swank Bill.

He takes it very personally,

but also knows that he's got a lot of support

from other sheriffs who maybe weren't as publicly critical

of this legislation as he was.

Here's part of my conversation this morning

with Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank.

My big concern is it takes away the right of the people

to elect their sheriff.

This is a weapon used by the Democrats

to be able to control the sheriffs.

Democrats control, as you know, the state house,

the state senate, every statewide elected officials

of Democrat, they control every single thing

here in the state except for sheriffs.

And now the passage of this bill,

they believe they'll be able to control sheriffs.

They'll be able to desertify them, remove them from office,

appoint the people they want to have in those positions,

and then they have complete control over everybody.

Well, part of the RCW,

is they used to remove officers and deputies.

That's pure automotive joy.

I'm Peter, the owner of Muscle Car Junior.

It started as a hobby, then I started posting about it.

Before I knew it, I built a business

for storing muscle cars on Facebook Marketplace

and the community of car lovers on Instagram.

Today, new customers send me what's that message is

from all over.

Not bad for a hobby.

Learn how meta helps over 35 million American businesses,

like Peter's Grow, at meta.com slash community.

Here's a shift worth noting.

Better healthcare is care that meets patients where they are.

United Health Group is bringing it directly to living rooms.

This is a win for patients managing chronic conditions.

And here's the interesting thing,

by closing those care gaps,

administering in-home exams and identifying risks earlier,

more diseases can be prevented

and patient outcomes can improve.

In 2025 alone, United Health Group patients

received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

From do you certify them and remove them,

from having their commission,

a section that talks about language, about speech.

Like if you use social media or you give interviews

or you do some speech that they find to be offensive

or things like that, right now I have five complaints

lodged against me with a criminal justice training commission

and it's all about speech.

There's no malfeasance in my office.

I haven't done anything illegal.

I don't do anything like that.

This is the cleanest this sheriff's office has ever been.

We're going back through auditing all kinds of practices

that we hear before me and fixing them.

But the people who don't like me don't like what I said.

They want to silence me.

That's what it's about.

So it's gonna be a big deal.

And really maybe it needs to happen.

Maybe we need to have attention brought to this

and saying that Sheriff Swenk said these words.

We don't like it.

We're removing him from office.

Also today had a chance to catch up with the man

who this bill may prevent from becoming

the next sheriff of Kitsup County.

This is Rick Cuss.

He is running for sheriff.

He's already, you know, good to have his name on the ballot.

Got a campaign going for months already.

He's a current King County Sheriff's deputy

and a retired U.S. Navy officer

who holds a master's degree in criminal justice.

But despite that combination of military leadership,

active patrol experience that he has right now

with King County, the bill's language

would just qualify him from being able to appear

on the ballot.

At this point, he has no intention

of ending his campaign.

He's in it for the long haul,

in it for the fight of his life.

He knows and here's part of what

Kitsup County Sheriff's candidate, Rick Cuss told me today.

This is the thing for me that kind of like,

what is the hill you will die on?

What is something that you'll fight

with everything you have for?

And having studied the Constitution,

both the U.S. and the state constitution

and realizing that I took an oath, you know,

in the military and then as a deputy sheriff

to our state and federal constitution,

this is it.

To me, it's clear in writing that this is what I will stand up

and fight for.

Like, I've talked with my wife.

This is something that I have to do to like sell belongings

and, you know, really, really sacrifice.

This is something that I'm going to stand up for

because it's something to me that is black and white wrong.

So Rick is a man of faith.

He said that's what's the standing at this point.

The campaign will continue.

He's also working with others

on a potential legal challenge against this.

So he says, ultimately, this is a,

and he described it as a hill worth, worth dying on.

So Sheriff Swank basically said the same to me today.

He is working with other sheriffs across the state.

There's a couple of potential avenues

for a legal action against this.

So this is certainly not the end of it yet to be signed into law,

but this bill to allow this unelected board

of the Criminal Justice Training Commission

to desertify sheriffs and decide who can even run

for sheriff in the state of Washington

has now passed the Senate and the House.

And the governor has indicated he will sign this legislation.

So it's kind of a big deal, a significant one.

I know we've paid a lot of attention to this one

because in the opinion of a lot of our readers

who have given a lot of commentary on this,

I should say on social media when we've written

previous articles.

I know this is something that anybody watching this

does care a heck of a lot about.

So we'll continue to watch this,

especially the litigation of the potential litigation

moving forward.

And my colleagues, T.J. Martinel and Tim Klauser

are going to bring you a discussion

of what they've done in Spokane this week.

This is another offshoot of the pushback in some communities

like Spokane to the federal immigration

and customs enforcement actions

that we've seen across the country.

Basically trying to say, you might own a space,

you might have a private office space of your own.

You're not allowed to run it out for ice purposes anymore.

Welcome to this episode of Washington Focus.

I'm your host T.J. Martinel with me as Tim Klauser.

And it seems like the city of Spokane

does not like immigration enforcement

at the federal level.

Tim, what's going on?

I would say the Spokane City Council

and the city administration, yeah,

that's a statement reflects their viewpoint

for the entire city.

I don't know if I could say as much considering that it's,

yeah, it's a blue dog and it's a relatively red area

in the state.

But this week, the Spokane City Council

passed two measures aimed at restricting

immigration enforcement in the lilac city,

the first of which would create what a council member,

Paul Dillon calls, quote unquote,

immigration enforcement free zones.

And we saw something similar happen in Seattle

a few weeks ago with the Mayor of the Arcadia Wilson

announcing a similar initiative,

which they're trying to codify with the city council there.

But it essentially creates this patchwork of properties

around the city where their ice, CBP,

and these other agencies aren't supposed

to use it for civil immigration enforcement operations.

So that can be staging vehicles,

interviewing or detaining someone in that space,

using the properties for cameras.

Essentially, they're saying these immigration enforcement

free zones are anything that is owned or operated by the city.

Now, this can be a building, a parking lot, a vacant lot.

It could be equipment that the city rents.

So its own cameras is saying that the ice can't be using

these cameras for immigration purposes.

And we're seeing a similar thing happen in Seattle.

The Mayor announced this initiative there,

they're trying to codify it,

but they're already putting up these signs around the city.

And that's what Spokane's going to do, too,

to identify these areas as they're going to post.

These signs all around the city,

it's up to, I think the department heads

to come up with a list of locations

that would apply under the ordinance.

But they're going to post these signs pretty much saying,

hey, ice, stay out, you can't be using this area

for a civil immigration enforcement operation.

Well, and if ice says, too bad, what are they going to do?

I just, I mean, it's just, one of the things to just,

this is so, I don't want to use,

it's not intrusive, but it's just so obsessive.

It would seem for a city that it's like,

do you guys not have anything else

that's any other pressing matters in your city

to then to do this?

And one of the things I find so fascinating,

it's both local and state governments

where they want to basically say that the feds can't touch anything.

Like you literally can't get a piece of gum from them

as if from the city of local government.

But when it comes to federal funding,

you better pony up the money, right?

With the bidder comes a sweet,

back on the day, really long time ago,

the states and the local governments were pretty much

able to do what they wanted in the feds,

really didn't have as much authority as they do now.

But they also weren't getting the kind of funding

that state local governments get from the federal government.

I mean, the number of federal grants,

if you're walking on a sidewalk in a city,

chances are it was paid for in part by federal funding.

So I just find it so interesting that there's this,

this basically you guys can't get a cup of sugar from us.

But here's all this, here's all these things

that was paid for by the same government

we don't want enforcing the law down here.

This law is an expansion of a policy

that the city council passed over the summer,

which essentially said the same thing

except for permanent events.

So they didn't want ICE coming into these events

in a street square and then arresting people.

And in response to that,

ICE issued a statement last summer.

That's pretty much said.

Thanks, but no thanks saying that.

I just, I think we don't really care about it.

Yeah, I think there's something really,

has this whole, this is what a lot of people might not know,

but it's called anti-commandeering.

It's this idea that local state governments

don't assist federal officers or federal agencies

with enforcement or federal laws.

But to my knowledge, nobody is claiming

that immigration enforcement is illegal

or unconstitutional.

They're not claiming that it's not like the president

just passed a law when he got into office

changing all of our immigration policies

that now makes people who are otherwise legal illegal.

They were here illegally.

That is the premise on which they're being removed.

And nobody's arguing about that.

I mean, nobody's denying that there's people

who are being arrested or detained

who are here illegally and are breaking the law.

So it's amazing that they're willing to go out of their way

to not assist federal law enforcement officers

with enforcing laws against people who are breaking the law.

So what message does that send to the average taxpayer

who has to follow the law or they get in trouble?

I, Washington state already has what many call

the state sanctuary law that keep Washington working

as with essentially prohibits local law enforcement

from using their resources to assist federal immigration

enforcement.

So council member Michael Cathgar,

he pretty much said on the days,

you know, what's the point of passing this law

if that law is already an effect?

I mean, this law doesn't do anything at the city level

that we're not already supposed to be doing

from the state law as he argued that, you know,

these measures around ICE are more so theater

that is played out in front of the city council

rather than like a meaningful policy

that will affect residents.

Right, and I see the statement in your story

where the Spokane police chief Kevin Hall said

that, you know, officers must respond

if they see unconstitutional or excessive uses of force,

but he warned pitting two arm agencies against each other.

You're great apparelist path.

Yeah, it was apparelist path.

Yeah, sorry guys, but unless there's something

to really bad happening and we're talking really dire,

we're not gonna have local law enforcement

arresting or detaining federal agents.

It's not gonna happen.

Like there's either that or there's gonna be bad stuff

that goes down and I think he's probably hinting

at that he's saying, this is what the law says,

but no, you're, we're gone.

I'm not gonna have my officers be so,

like, cause can you imagine the legal, first of all,

and there's a lawsuit by the federal government.

Do you they really want that getting in front

of the US Supreme Court and have an actual ruling

on these kind of policies?

I don't think that anybody wants to see a go

that far.

Yeah, and that was a concern of, of Cathcart,

the one conservative on the Spokane City Council.

He was concerned last summer in the last few months

that, you know, by passing these measures,

making statements outright against

ICE and immigration enforcement,

that it would cast a spotlight on the city

and invite lawsuits, invite the potential polling

of federal funding.

And I asked him about this a few times recently

and he said, you know, it's not really a concern

for me anymore.

As much as he isn't really in favor of this legislation,

and he continues to vote against it,

he says, you know, the progressive majority in Spokane

is pretty much everything,

done pretty much everything they could to invite ICE there

or to poll federal funding and it hasn't happened yet.

So he's skeptical as to whether or not

there's anything else that Spokane can do

to invite federal intervention,

not that he wants that in any way,

but I don't think it's so much of a crutch

and his argument as it was.

It's with the bit, like I said,

the biter comes as sweet, but anyways.

Yeah, this is going to be an interesting situation

to keep an eye on.

So we appreciate your coverage, Tim.

Listeners can keep up with this and others

at the CenterSquare.com.

I'm your host, Tija Martinel.

Thanks for listening to this episode of Boston in Focus.

Next Thursday, March the 12th,

it's scheduled to be the last day

of the 2026 legislative session.

There's a lot to get done between then and now.

And next week, we're going to spend some time focusing

on some of the bills that have died,

that the minority believes they were successful

and killing.

We'll get into some of that

and plenty more to cover in this last,

these last days of the session.

So thank you for watching today's episode

of Washington in Focus Daily.

Have a great weekend.

You

Freight rail does more than move goods.

It drives America's economy.

Every dollar invested generates another $2.50

in economic activity, spurring growth from farms to factories.

And here's the best part.

Freight railroads fund their own infrastructure,

saving taxpayers billions while powering the economy forward

from reducing highway congestion

to delivering goods safely and efficiently.

Freight rail keeps America moving.

Learn more at aar.org slash America's engine.

Life's busy.

Don't let banking slow you down.

Whether you're paying bills, setting savings goals,

or just splitting the check.

Atlantic Union Bank makes managing your money easier.

With helpful people and user-friendly tools,

we make sure banking with us.

It fits you.

Call, visit us online, or drop into an Atlantic Union bank

branch today.

Atlantic Union Bank.

Anyway, you bank.

Fandool is dropping bonus bets into everyone's account

for the tournament.

All you have to do is opt in to claim your bonus.

But don't wait.

These bonus bets are only available for a limited time.

Fandool, play your game.

21 plus in present and select states.

Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable bonus bets

which expire seven days after receipt.

Max bonus $500 unless otherwise specified.

Restrictions apply.

See terms at sportsbook.fandool.com.

Gambling problem?

Call 1-800-Gampler.