Washington In Focus Daily | 4.30.26 | Sheriff Law Blocked + SCOTUS Redistricting Ruling Impacts WA

Welcome to Washington in focus daily. It is Thursday, April 30th, the last day of April,

four months of 2026 in the books. And we have a very busy episode for you today. I'm

Carling Johnson, the Center Square Washington State Government reporter.

Now yesterday, a judge in Thurston County agreed to block most of the anti-share of

bills, said at Bill 5974, from taking effect. There was a lawsuit brought by four sheriffs

from Eastern Washington challenging the constitutionality of the law. And the judge agreed that there

are some major issues with this bill. It was not blocked in its entirety from taking

effect. But the most controversial, if you will, parts of it and the First Amendment

challenges, as far as freedom of speech go, were blocked from taking effect at midnight

today. So we're going to have an update, lots of perspective on that with exclusive

reaction, including from the sheriff who really became sort of the face of this bill, if you will.

Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank, not a party to the lawsuit, but he was the one who's explosive

testimony during a hearing went crazy viral when he said, basically, just try and come remove

me from office, if you will. And we'll see what my constituents will do. Of course, those comments,

got a lot of reaction on both sides of that argument. So I spoke to him this morning. We'll have his

reaction as well as reaction from one of the lead attorneys on the case for the plaintiffs,

the four Eastern Washington sheriffs, and reaction as well from a candidate for Kitsap County sheriff

who without this suspension, this injunction of much of the bill from going to the law,

would have to suspend his candidacy, would not be able to run because it doesn't have five consecutive

years in law enforcement. So we're a conversation with that gentleman coming up in today's episode.

And then to the redistricting, there was a huge decision that came out from the United States

Supreme Court on Wednesday in a racial gerrymandering case out of Louisiana with the majority

room you can't draw congressional districts based on race. Well, a reminder that we hear in

Washington going back to a racial gerrymandering case that affected many of our district boundaries

involving Senator Nikki Torres of Yakima. I had a conversation with her this morning to get her

reaction on this ruling. She thinks it may well have consequences here in Washington because of

this decision. So we're going to weigh into all of that on today's episode of Washington in focus.

So Wednesday brought lengthy arguments about one of the most hotly debated bills of the 2026

session. This is the anti sheriff bill said it bill five nine seven four. That would allow the

criminal justice training commission to decertify and remove and elected sheriff from office.

If they let's say took issue with a social media post or an association that that sheriff had

with some group that they found objections with. Now, Thurston County Superior Court judge

Christine Schaller temporarily said, I'm going to suspend most of this bill or the most

objection parts of this bill from taking effect. She granted what's called a preliminary injunction.

I should note it is very difficult to get a preliminary injunction for a bill from taking

effect. You have to meet a very high bar to get those, including what the plaintiffs say,

this is unconstitutional. When she grants that preliminary injunction, the judges basically saying,

I think you've got a good case here. I think based on what I've seen in your arguments,

you're likely to prevail on the merits of this case ultimately. So for now, I'm going to grant

this injunction. Now, the sheriffs in this are sheriffs from Spokane, from Ponderay County,

from Stevens County and from Ferry County. These four sheriffs that mounted this legal challenge

to ask for this preliminary injunction, which again was granted in part. The sheriffs argue the

new rules are unconstitutional and here you see the judge agreed. It is important obviously that

there ultimately be a final decision on the issues raised herein because also I have no doubt

and rightfully so that there will be an appeal. I'm not the last stop as it relates to

determinations as it relates to constitutionality nor should I be. This was a very interesting

hearing and was drawn out even as the judge came back and said, I'm going to issue the preliminary

injunction but then the state and no Purcell pushed to say, so what are you are you injuncting the

entire bill? Certain sections of it. We want to know what the deal is and the judge came back and

said, you guys hash it out and I'll come back in a few minutes. So she called a recess. She left

and that left Mark Lamb the attorney for the four sheriffs and solicitor general Noah Purcell

to talk amongst themselves and try to hash out okay. I'm saying that you know this is the most

offensive part of the bill. This can't take effect at midnight and then you've got the state pushing

back like okay wait a minute we think this shouldn't take effect. This is not your main issue with

the bill. This went back and forth for well over an hour at one point the judge came back. They both

had some presentations again and she said, you still haven't worked this out. I'm out of here

again you better have this figured out when I come back and then she came back another 34 minutes

later and finally they had agreed on the sections of the bill to be injuncted or basically put on a

hold until the full lawsuit plays out and it was the most according to the plaintiffs the most

egregious part of the bill which was section nine in the bill that was completely put on hold and

this has to do with some of the criteria you got to be 25 years old you got to sort of five

consecutive years to be a candidate and it precludes the criminal justice training commission from

going back and looking at all your social social media all of your associations in the past because

at this point the way the bill is written if they found something objectionable in your past they

could move to desertify and remove you from office. So that section alone as well as some others

being put on hold by this judge in Thurston County Wednesday was a huge victory for the plaintiffs.

This is Ashley Burnham with the law from that represents the four sheriffs. I spoke with her just

after the court hearing ended on Wednesday. We could not be more thrilled with dad Schaulers

she delivered an impressive reasoning from the bench we were waiting at the edge of our seats throughout

that it was absolutely well-reasoned and thoughtful and I could not be more impressed with judge

Schaulers and the commitment that she took to understanding the issues at play here and to

considering both parties briefing and the constitutional issues that our clients have at stake

we are just so thrilled and honored to be able to represent for county sheriffs who believed in

this law and believed that it was important to stand up and challenge this law. The court

thinks that we are likely to succeed on the merits it's actually a very difficult standard to meet

and as you saw from judge Schaulers willing she very carefully considered the requirements to meet

a preliminary injunction. One of those requirements is that the law itself is likely to be held on

constitutional. Another one is that our clients the county sheriffs have a well-rounded reasonable

fear that their constitutional rights might be violated and she found in favor of our clients

the county sheriffs on both of those friends as well as the fact that their rights cannot be

remediated at a later date by a court of law once the law goes into effect she found that their first

minute constitutional rights and 14th amendment constitutional rights are likely to be violated

and so we are absolutely thrilled with our reasoning but this is not the end the state has already

asked for a stay of this order and they intend to appeal this ruling and so we will continue to fight

at the public court level the Supreme Court level and beyond. Now you may recall it was Pierce

County sheriff Keith Swank and his testimony that prompted some pushback even from the Washington

Sheriff's Association that basically came out and said we take issue with what you're saying

because he said try to remove me from office if this bill gets passed and see how my supporters

respond it was intentionally provocative he told me on several occasions he did that because

he finds this bill to be truly unconstitutional so today I got his reaction to the preliminary

injunction. I'm pleased with it I was really surprised about the judge the judges ruling because

you know when it got moved from Ponder Ray County to Lincoln County then the first in county

as like oh man they're setting this up so that they'll have a judge there that won't be open

mind it won't abide by the Constitution so I was really surprised I'm very happy about it I

really believe the whole bill was unconstitutional but the but the parts that the judge put it

really injunction on is still good it helps us out and I think we can fight the whole thing there's

another court hearing tomorrow with Sheriff candidate and also the Washington Sheriff's Association

lawsuit that will be a hearing tomorrow down in Olympia and I'll be attending that to see what

comes from that is to chill the speech more than chill the speech to control my speech right I have

now I think 10 complaints filed or the criminal justice training commission all involving things

that I've said that the left doesn't agree with so they file a complaint against me right and so

yeah that's a big deal and to give some bureaucracy the ability to say you know longer sheriff because

you said trans women are men which is true and if I told them will prove me to me scientifically

that it's not and they can't are asking what a definition of a woman as they can't but those

what I said was hate speech subside down so it's good to have that a ruling come out like that I

mean we need to do more fighting the other thing is I don't know how quickly it will it could be

appealed straight to the state supreme court so they could be ruling on it even next week while

filing is going on so I don't think that Rick Kus who was in the lawsuit tomorrow is out of the

out of the woods yet right his situation is not out of the woods yet we have to make sure that

the injunction holds through filing and then everybody that's been filed has filed then it doesn't

affect me I'm not running for sheriff this year so but everybody else who's running which is most

of the sheriff's offices are election this year they need to be able to know what to do I mean

right now they're saying do we have to fill this background information or do we not and I'm

saying no don't do it but you know but when they change it next week and say you have to have it

done and now they don't have it done and they don't qualify in time to file for sheriff so it's

still worrisome now and Friday morning there is a separate lawsuit a hearing and a separate lawsuit

against this anti sheriff bill brought by Kitsap County Sheriff's candidate Rick Kus and the Washington

Sheriff's Association suing to block it now given Wednesday's preliminary injunction granted

on this bill he may be in the clear for his candidacy but the hearing is still taking place and we're

going to be there to cover it to find out exactly what this judge says it's a different judge might

have a different take on the reading of the injunction and how this separate lawsuit moves forward or

perhaps is you know combined with the other one again we'll be there in court on Friday morning

to bring you the update but here is what sheriff's candidate Rick Kus told me after yesterday's

win for his side in Thurston County yeah it was a huge win for you know sheriff's in general

just going out there and being the ones that represent the people and fighting for the people's

constitutional rights and as decided by the judges and injunctions so it affected section 9 which

is the one that affects my ability to run for sheriff so right now I will be able to file based

on the mode based on the decision by the judge and I'll have a court case on Friday similar things

but I expect the same outcome just there's going to be with all the appeals and stuff going on

will be there'll be two separate paths and so it's a huge win a huge start for us I kind of expect

on Friday morning so say similar things and then kind of maybe address how I am protected with

this lawsuit until further appeals or if future outcomes affect the case negatively there'll be

two separate paths so I should be protected via both lawsuits she did her research to a very

thorough judge studying all the case law going going back far you know there's a there's some

nervousness being in Thurston County a lot of people told me well it's kind of decided for you

being in Olympia but it turns out you know the law is on our side the Constitution protects us and

the judges right there are fair for all and definitely decided that some of the elements were on

constitutional which we're clear and obvious to most people so just to let some of the legislators

just didn't understand the Constitution and this judge provides some clarity for that

and now to Wednesdays hugely significant ruling from the US Supreme Court limiting the scope of a

key voting rights act provision that restricts how states can redraw their boundaries affecting

minority voters basically constraining the use of race as a factor when drawing congressional maps

and justice is ruled six three this was a case out of Louisiana the basically said these maps were

redrawn to create a second majority black district and they constitute that to be an illegal

racial gerrymandering now Washington state went through this years ago it did not get nearly

the national attention that it probably deserved or the we wrote on it extensively here at the

center square this was when the 15th legislative district maps were redrawn they kind of look if

you look at a district map they kind of look like an octopus now but the boundary is just absolutely

bizarre supposedly the idea was to give Latino voters a stronger voice but it was I mean nobody

denied it was racial gerrymandering and it effectively pushed a lot of Latino Senator Nikki Torres

out of her own district to the point that now she is running this year in a completely different

district in the neighboring eighth legislative district which is more of the tri cities area of

Pasco-Kenoic Richland that region so she's literally had to move physically move to you know continue

being a senator in the state of Washington here is what she told me this morning in reaction

to this scotus ruling in the Louisiana case and her hopes that it may impact Washington it was

hoping that it would come out earlier versus as late as it did and even last year we're kind of

hoping that they would up but they kind of kicked the can down the road a little bit

and what happened with my district with the redistricting of the 15th and the four well it was both

districts the 15th and the 14th that were really impacted we saw that the Hispanic voting

age the HPA population they call it actually reduced they reduced it with when they

redrew the maps for the 15th district so it was like originally like 50 point one or 50 point

two and it went down to like 49 I believe so they significantly reduced I mean even it's a small

portion but still it was it was a good enough portion to be claiming that they needed to redraw

the maps because it diluted the Latino vote well when they redrew the maps they actually diluted it

more in the 15th and they made it more more white and more Democrat now they redrawn boundaries

in central Washington there and senator Torres district have created a flurry of people you know

musical chairs if you will there's a say representative Jerry Defoe of Sela who's now planning to

run for the Senate seat that she's leaving the one she's vacating you've got other Republicans joining

in the race against Torres going into the primary which will be August so there are a bunch of

musical chairs happening here one more note before we end today's episode of Washington in focus

today the Washington state Supreme Court is behind closed doors taking up the appeal of the

secretary of state blocking let's go Washington and found a Brian Haywood from pursuing a referendum

to the newly enacted income tax here in the state of Washington you may recall secretary of state

Steve Hobbs said I refuse to process your referendum request because the bill actually

precludes a referendum because it contains a necessity clause well let's go Washington challenge

that said there shouldn't be they ultimately said it was a misinterpretation of the state constitution

but that has been rejected their appealing and behind closed doors media not allowed or we'd be

there today they are discussing that there will be a decision we expect today on this appeal for

a referendum on the income tax proposal from the state Supreme Court we will have reaction for you

in tomorrow's episode of Washington in focus so that's it for today's episode as always thank you

for watching I hope you'll join us again tomorrow