‘Why take the power away from the people?’: Jake and Spike split over the future of Pierce County sheriff elections

Pierce County voters will decide Nov. 3 whether to make the sheriff an appointed position instead of an elected office. Charter Amendment 53 would also end Sheriff Keith Swank’s current elected term on Jan. 1, 2027, with future sheriffs appointed by the county executive and confirmed by a majority of the County Council.

The proposal divided co-host Jake Skorheim and co-host Spike O’Neill during “The Jake and Spike Show” on KIRO Newsradio, with Jake defending direct voter control and Spike supporting appointment as a way to address qualifications and accountability.

“I like elected officials. My personal view on this is that they are more accountable to the voters and less accountable to the comings and goings of executives’ offices and city halls,” Jake said.

“People sometimes can vote for candidates who aren’t qualified because they rally around a political position they have or whatever it might be,” Spike said.

Appointment would require council confirmation

The sheriff is currently a nonpartisan elected official. Under Amendment 53, the executive’s selection would require approval from a majority of the council, rather than taking effect through the executive’s decision alone.

“It’s not just one person saying, ‘I want this guy to be sheriff,’” Spike said. “You’d have to have a majority of the County Council.”

Jake questioned how much influence the executive would hold.

“Why take the power away from the people?” Jake said.

Spike emphasized that voters would decide whether to change the system.

“I like the fact that the voters get to decide if they’re going to put this power in the hands of the executive and a council, as opposed to them just taking that power from the citizenry,” Spike said.

Qualifications and removal become the focus

Supporters of the amendment argue that appointment would allow a wider search for qualified candidates. Opponents favor keeping the sheriff directly accountable to voters.

Spike posed hypothetical situations involving a sheriff who no longer met the qualifications for office.

“If they don’t meet the qualifications for the job, should the voters be able to say we want them anyway?” Spike said. “The people shouldn’t be able to vote past the regulations of the office qualifications.”

Jake rejected using those hypothetical cases as a reason to change the selection process.

“This is such a crazy hypothetical. It’s literally never happened,” Jake said. “So to take the power away from the people for a crazy hypothetical, I don’t accept the premise of your hypothetical.”

Recall process raises a separate disagreement

The hosts also disagreed about whether a recall election provides sufficient accountability. Jake described judicial review and a public vote as protections against removing an official without adequate grounds.

“Recall is limited to specific grounds. The official committed acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or violated the oath of office,” Jake said. “That’s the power of the people.”

Spike questioned what should happen if voters declined to remove an official despite an oath violation.

“But he still violated his oath of office. Shouldn’t the county have an ability to take him out if he violates his oath of office?” Spike said.

“That’s their decision,” Jake responded.

Pierce County has used both systems

Pierce County previously had appointed sheriffs before returning the office to elections. Former Sheriff Paul Pastor, who served under both systems, opposes Amendment 53, according to Gig Harbor Now.

The amendment is one of seven proposed charter changes on Pierce County’s November ballot.

Watch the full discussion in the video above.

Listen to “The Jake and Spike Show” weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. on KIRO Newsradio 97.3