Democracy is rarely weakened in one dramatic moment. More often, it changes through small structural decisions that appear reasonable until citizens realize they have surrendered a piece of their authority.
Pierce County voters are being asked to make one of those decisions.
The November ballot asks whether the county sheriff should remain an elected official chosen by the people or become an appointed official chosen by government. At first glance, the proposal sounds like an administrative reform intended to improve efficiency and coordination.
But that description overlooks the measure’s most significant consequence: it transfers the power to choose one of the county’s most important public officials away from the voters.
An elected sheriff is directly accountable to the people. Citizens decide who holds that office and can remove that person at the next election. An appointed sheriff answers primarily to the officials who appoint and can remove the officeholder. The duties may remain the same, but the chain of accountability changes fundamentally.
Government institutions require accountability, not expanded authority. Elected positions exist to ensure that those who exercise public power remain directly accountable to the people they serve.
Every time an elected office becomes an appointed one, citizens lose one direct opportunity to hold government accountable.
Voters should look beyond the stated purpose of any government proposal and examine its long-term effect on the balance of power. Whether intentional or not, structural changes that move decisions away from voters and into government institutions result in greater authority being held by those institutions.
Citizens should always ask two simple questions: Why is this change necessary, and who gains authority if it passes?
For years, national leaders have warned that reducing citizens’ influence over elections threatens democracy. Yet, in Washington state, voters are now being asked to replace direct voter choice with appointment in one of their own elected offices. If protecting democracy means preserving the public’s voice, that principle must apply everywhere, not only when the political consequences are convenient.
A responsible request for public support fully explains both the benefits and the consequences of a proposal. If government asks taxpayers to approve a levy, voters deserve to know exactly why the money is needed and how it will be used. The same standard should apply to changing the structure of government.
Voters deserve to understand not only what this measure promises to accomplish, but also what authority they are being asked to surrender.
Citizens should approach any proposal that reduces their direct voice in government with great caution. The first question should always be: Does this measure give the people more control over their government or less?
The question before Pierce County is not simply how to select a sheriff. It is whether the people will continue to choose those who exercise public power, or whether that authority will be transferred to government officials.
Power is rarely taken from the people all at once. More often, it is surrendered one decision at a time.
Ray Anderson
Ethel
