Libertarian Party of Pierce County

08/10/2026

Join us Saturday, August 29, for Liberty Comes to Washington at the Nile Shriners in Mountlake Terrace!

We’ll be joined by Chase Oliver, 2024 Libertarian Presidential Nominee, along with Cobi Clark, Bruce Guthrie, Joseph Soel, and other liberty-minded Washingtonians for an afternoon of speakers, conversation, and dinner.

Doors open at 3:00 PM, the speaker program begins at 4:00 PM, and dinner is at 6:00 PM.

Get your tickets here: https://lpwa.ticketspice.com/chase-oliver

Can’t make Saturday? There’s also a small, intimate dinner with Chase Oliver on Friday, August 28, at Elliott Bay Brewing in Burien, limited to just 25 guests.

And if you can’t attend either event, please consider making a secure donation to support the Libertarian Party of Washington at lpwa.org/donate

07/23/2026

If you live in the Bothell, Woodinville, Kenmore, and surrounding communities consider voting for Jeff Lyon for State House. Washington deserves practical leadership that puts people ahead of politics.

Jeff Lyon is running for Washington State House, LD 1, Position 2 with a platform built around four core priorities:

✅ Tax reform that reduces the burden on working families.
✅ Fully funding K–12 education while creating pathways to high-paying careers in AI, engineering, healthcare, software, robotics, and aerospace.
✅ Returning zoning and development decisions to local communities.
✅ Protecting direct democracy so voters—not politicians—have the final say.

A father, veteran, engineer, and community advocate, Jeff believes Washington can move beyond partisan gridlock by focusing on measurable results, fiscal responsibility, and local control.

Serving Bothell, Woodinville, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, and surrounding communities, Jeff is running to build opportunity, strengthen public schools, and make government work for the people it serves.

2026 is an opportunity to challenge the status quo and build a more prosperous Washington for everyone.

Pragmatic. Working for All Washingtonians. Eliminate state taxes for most families. Fully fund our schools. Restore local control.

07/17/2026

The decisions our state's highest court makes can have a lasting impact on constitutional rights, due process, property rights, civil liberties, and the limits of government power.

Libertarian Party of Washington State has put together a Washington Supreme Court Primary Recommendation Guide to help voters evaluate the candidates through a libertarian lens. These are best-choice recommendations, not endorsements.

Whether you're a longtime libertarian or simply believe in judicial restraint and protecting individual liberty, we encourage you to take a look before you vote.

🗳️ Primary Election: August 4, 2026

Learn more and view the guide at lpwa.org.

07/09/2026

Don't Change the Rules Because You Don't Like the Referee
Pierce County shouldn't trade voter accountability for political convenience.

The debate over whether Pierce County should appoint its sheriff instead of electing one has been framed as a question of accountability. Supporters argue that an appointed sheriff can be removed more easily, recruited nationally, and managed like any other executive department. They point to controversies surrounding Sheriff Keith Swank as evidence that the current system has failed.

They're asking the wrong question.

The real question isn't whether Keith Swank deserves criticism. Public officials should be criticized when warranted. The question is whether government should permanently reduce the public's ability to choose its chief law enforcement officer because elected officials dislike the person voters selected.

From a libertarian perspective, the answer should be no.

Power Should Flow Downward, Not Upward

Libertarianism begins with a simple premise: government power should be decentralized whenever possible.

Power concentrated in fewer hands is harder to challenge, harder to oversee, and more susceptible to political abuse.

That principle applies whether the office belongs to a Republican, Democrat, conservative, or progressive.

An elected sheriff answers directly to voters.
An appointed sheriff answers first to the county executive.
Those are fundamentally different incentive structures.

Under the proposed charter amendment, Pierce County would transfer one of its most powerful constitutional offices from the public to another politician.

Instead of citizens deciding who runs the Sheriff's Office, one elected executive would select the sheriff, subject to confirmation by the County Council.

Supporters call that accountability.
Libertarians call it consolidation.

Every time government removes a decision from voters and places it inside government itself, political power becomes more centralized.

History rarely rewards that trade.

The Timing Matters

Supporters insist this proposal has been discussed for years.
That is true.

But timing still matters.

The Charter Review Commission didn't merely propose changing how future sheriffs are selected.

It voted to terminate the current sheriff's elected term on January 1, 2027, well before the four-year term voters approved expires.

Whether one supports Sheriff Swank or opposes him entirely, changing the rules in the middle of an elected term creates an uncomfortable precedent.

Imagine the reverse.

Suppose a conservative county executive disliked a progressive prosecutor and proposed eliminating elections for that office halfway through her term.

Most people would immediately recognize the danger.
Principles cannot depend on whose ox is being gored.

Liberty requires neutral rules.

If elections matter only when our preferred candidate wins, they don't really matter at all.

Libertarians Distrust Political Appointments

One of the oldest libertarian concerns is regulatory capture—the tendency for institutions to become controlled by the very political interests they're supposed to remain independent from.

The same danger exists here.

An appointed sheriff inevitably serves at the pleasure of political leadership.

Perhaps not formally.
But practically.

If the county executive appoints you...
If the County Council confirms you...
If both can influence your future employment...

How independent are you when investigations involve those same political institutions?

One purpose of an independently elected sheriff is institutional separation.

The office exists outside normal executive hierarchy precisely because law enforcement sometimes investigates government itself.

The Founders separated powers for a reason.

Local government should be cautious before recombining them.

Accountability Is More Than Removal

Supporters frequently argue that appointed officials are easier to remove.
They're right.

But easier removal isn't always synonymous with greater accountability.

Corporate CEOs are easy to fire.
Judges are intentionally difficult to remove.

The question is not simply whether removal is possible.
The question is who gets to decide.

An elected sheriff answers to hundreds of thousands of voters.
An appointed sheriff answers to one executive.

That's not expanding accountability.
That's changing the audience.

History Doesn't Support Either Side

Supporters often reference former Sheriff George Janovich, whose racketeering conviction helped lead Pierce County to adopt an appointed sheriff system in 1980.

Opponents counter that Pierce County voters reversed course in 2006 by approving elected sheriffs with roughly two-thirds support.

Both historical facts are true.
Both systems have produced failures.

George Janovich was elected.
Former Tacoma Police Chief David Brame was appointed.

Corruption doesn't magically disappear because government changes hiring procedures.

Bad people can win elections.
Bad people can also be hired.

Changing the selection method doesn't eliminate human nature.

A National Search Sounds Good, Until Politics Begins

One argument for appointment is that Pierce County could conduct a nationwide search for the "best" candidate.

On paper, that sounds attractive.
In practice, government hiring rarely resembles private-sector meritocracy.

Appointments become political.
Interest groups lobby.
Executives reward allies.
Councils negotiate.
Candidates learn what answers are expected.

This is hardly unique to Pierce County.

Across America, police chief appointments often become contentious political battles because the hiring authority naturally seeks someone aligned with its priorities.

That isn't corruption.
It's simply politics.

The difference is that elections make politics visible.
Appointments often hide it behind closed doors.

Washington Has Been Moving Toward More State Control

The Pierce County debate isn't occurring in isolation.

This year, Washington enacted legislation modernizing qualifications, certification, and removal processes affecting sheriffs and other law enforcement leaders through 2SSB 5974. The legislation established new eligibility standards and expanded mechanisms tied to peace officer certification. Parts of the law have already become the subject of constitutional litigation over state authority versus local electoral control.

Reasonable people can support professional standards for law enforcement.

But libertarians should notice the broader trend.

Authority is steadily moving upward.

From voters.....to county executives.....to state commissions.....to centralized oversight bodies.

Each proposal may appear reasonable on its own.

Together they represent a gradual migration of power away from citizens and toward institutions.

That is precisely the sort of incremental centralization libertarian philosophy warns against.

A Thought Experiment

Imagine Pierce County adopts appointed sheriffs.

Ten years from now, a county executive from the opposite political party appoints a sheriff committed to priorities many current supporters oppose.

Would they still prefer appointment?
Or would they suddenly rediscover the virtues of elections?

Political systems shouldn't be designed around today's personalities.

They should be designed to survive tomorrow's disagreements.

The Constitution exists precisely because we cannot predict who will hold office next.

Liberty Requires Living With Outcomes We Dislike

Keith Swank has generated controversy.
Even many who support elected sheriffs acknowledge that.
But constitutional design should never become personality-driven.

Libertarians have long argued that liberty is tested not when government protects people we like, but when it protects processes that produce outcomes we dislike.

The temptation to centralize authority always arrives wrapped in promises of efficiency, professionalism, and accountability.

Sometimes those promises are sincere.
Sometimes they're even true.
But every transfer of power upward deserves skepticism.

The voters of Pierce County consciously chose an elected sheriff system in 2006 after previously living under appointment. Now, amid controversy surrounding one particular officeholder, they're being asked not only to reverse that choice but to shorten the term of the official they elected in 2024.

That's a much bigger decision than whether Keith Swank should remain sheriff.

It's a decision about who ultimately owns political power.

Libertarians have answered that question for generations.

Not the executive.
Not the council.
Not the commission.

The people.

07/02/2026

If Washingtonians Are Going Backward, Olympia Should Too

By any measure, this is terrible optics.

At the very moment Washington families are struggling with rising costs, small businesses are fighting to stay alive, and taxpayers are absorbing one tax increase after another, Olympia's political class just got another raise.

Gov. Bob Ferguson's salary now exceeds $234,000. State lawmakers now earn nearly $72,500 annually, roughly $10,000 more than they made just two years ago. The attorney general and other elected officials also received pay increases.

We're told not to blame the politicians because an independent commission approved the raises.

That misses the point entirely.

The issue isn't whether politicians technically voted themselves a raise. The issue is that government has become increasingly insulated from the consequences of its own decisions.

And from a libertarian perspective, that is precisely the problem.

Libertarianism begins with a simple principle: no one should be insulated from the consequences of their actions, especially those exercising power over others. Accountability is not optional. It is the foundation of a free society.

Yet Washington government has created precisely the opposite arrangement.

Families bear the costs.
Businesses bear the costs.
Taxpayers bear the costs.
Government gets a raise.

Washingtonians Are Going Backward

For years, Washington residents have been squeezed from every direction.

Housing costs remain among the highest in America. Property taxes continue climbing. Utility bills are increasing. Insurance costs are rising. Groceries cost significantly more than they did just a few years ago. For many households, paychecks simply do not stretch as far as they once did.

In many cases, families are not merely treading water.
They are going backward.

Their purchasing power has declined. Their savings rates have deteriorated. Their ability to buy a home, save for retirement, pay for childcare, or simply get ahead has weakened.

The same is true for small businesses.

Across Washington, restaurant owners, retailers, contractors, manufacturers, and family-run businesses face rising labor costs, increasing insurance premiums, growing regulatory burdens, escalating commercial rents, and customers with less disposable income.

Many business owners have gone years without giving themselves raises. Some have taken pay cuts. Some have depleted personal savings to keep employees on payroll. Others have closed businesses that took decades to build.

That is what accountability looks like in the real world.

When conditions deteriorate, people suffer the consequences.
Government rarely does.

The Fundamental Libertarian Objection

Libertarians believe political power should be constrained because government exercises force.

Taxes are not voluntary transactions. Citizens cannot opt out.

When government takes more money through taxes, fees, and assessments, it does so under the authority of law and with the power of enforcement behind it.

That power demands humility and restraint.

Instead, Washington's political class continually asks for more.

More taxes.
More spending.
More programs.
More regulation.
More fees.
And now, more money for itself.

At some point, taxpayers inevitably begin to ask whether government exists to serve the people or whether the people increasingly exist to finance government.

This is why the phrase "taxation is theft" resonates with many libertarians. The phrase is intentionally provocative, but it expresses a deeper principle: when government continually extracts more resources from citizens while delivering diminishing value and exempting itself from sacrifice, taxation begins to resemble legalized taking rather than public service.

Washingtonians can be forgiven for increasingly feeling that way.

They are paying more.
Receiving less.
Falling behind.
And watching government reward itself anyway.

Public Choice Explains Exactly Why This Happens

Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan spent much of his career explaining why government behaves this way.

Politicians are not angels.
Bureaucracies are not selfless.

Political institutions respond to incentives just like everyone else.

Institutions seek larger budgets, more authority, more employees, and greater compensation.

Without accountability, government naturally expands itself.
Washington demonstrates this dynamic perfectly.

If homelessness spending increases while homelessness persists, budgets often increase.

If educational outcomes stagnate, budgets increase.
If infrastructure projects exceed their budgets, budgets increase.
If affordability worsens and taxpayers struggle, politicians still receive raises.

Failure rarely produces restraint.
It usually produces demands for more money.

No private institution could operate this way indefinitely.

Only government can continually demand additional resources while remaining largely insulated from the consequences of poor outcomes.

Most Washingtonians Don't Get Guaranteed Raises

Many legislators maintain careers and businesses outside the Legislature. They are attorneys, consultants, educators, nonprofit leaders, farmers, and business owners.

They understand exactly what economic pain looks like.

A restaurant owner does not receive an automatic raise because food costs increased.

A contractor does not receive a guaranteed pay increase because regulations became more expensive.

A retailer does not appoint a commission to raise compensation because customers are spending less.

Business owners absorb losses.
Workers absorb losses.
Families absorb losses.
Government does not.

This violates another core libertarian principle: equality before the law.

There should not be one set of economic rules for citizens and another set for those exercising political power.

If ordinary Washingtonians must live with the consequences of economic conditions and public policy decisions, government officials should not be exempt from those same realities.

A political class protected from the burdens imposed on everyone else inevitably loses touch with the people it governs.

Shared Sacrifice Is Accountability

Imagine if Washington had a different rule.

Whenever inflation-adjusted median household income declined, elected officials received no raises.

Whenever tax collections grew faster than household incomes, salaries froze.

Whenever real family incomes declined, elected officials took a proportional pay reduction.

Whenever affordability worsened, homelessness increased, or economic growth stagnated, automatic raises were suspended.

Would priorities change?
Would lawmakers spend more carefully?
Would they scrutinize programs more aggressively?
Would they ask whether another tax increase was truly necessary?
Would they think twice before increasing the cost of living for families and employers?

Almost certainly.
Because incentives matter.

In every other part of society, leaders experience the consequences of their decisions.

Government should too.

Public Service Means Sharing the Burden

The central issue here is not envy.

It is accountability.

When government policies fail, taxpayers pay.
When costs rise, families pay.
When businesses close, entrepreneurs pay.
When purchasing power declines, workers pay.
Yet government itself remains remarkably protected.

Why should politicians receive raises when the people they govern are effectively receiving pay cuts?

Why should Olympia prosper while Washingtonians struggle?

Why should the governing class be insulated from economic realities that everyone else must endure?

Libertarianism rejects the notion of a protected political class.

Those who exercise power over others should be held to at least the same standards as everyone else and arguably to higher ones.

Public service was never intended to create a political aristocracy with guaranteed compensation growth regardless of outcomes.

It was intended to be exactly what the name implies:
Service.

If Washingtonians are expected to tighten their belts, Olympia should tighten its own.

If families are going backward, government should not be moving forward.

And if the people who govern us insist that higher taxes, higher costs, and declining affordability are necessary sacrifices, then they should be willing to share in those sacrifices rather than exempt themselves from them.

Anything less is not public service.
It is privilege financed by people who increasingly can no longer afford it.

Footnotes and Sources

Jerry Cornfield, "WA governor, AG and state lawmakers just got pay hikes," Washington State Standard, republished by The Seattle Times, July 2026. The article reported that Gov. Bob Ferguson and Attorney General Nick Brown received 7% raises in both 2025 and 2026, while legislators' salaries rose to approximately $72,494 annually.

Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials, 2025-2027 salary schedule and commission materials. The commission approved cumulative compensation increases of approximately 16% for legislators and 14% for the governor and attorney general over two fiscal years.

James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (1962); James M. Buchanan, The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan (1975). These works established public choice economics and the principle that political actors respond to incentives and institutional self-interest similarly to market participants.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index data and inflation reports documenting significant increases in consumer prices and declines in purchasing power in recent years.

Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (1960), and Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). These works articulate classical liberal and libertarian principles of limited government, equality before the law, constrained political power, and skepticism toward the concentration of governmental authority.

U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, research on the role of small businesses in employment and economic growth and the disproportionate impact that rising costs and regulatory burdens can have on small enterprises.

The philosophical argument that "taxation is theft" is a longstanding libertarian critique of coercive state power and compulsory taxation. In libertarian thought, the phrase reflects concerns regarding consent, accountability, and the moral obligations that arise when government exercises coercive authority over citizens' property and income.

06/30/2026

Thank you to our friends at Libertarian Party of Kitsap County of pointing out these important judicical races. This is worth the read.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DDhciuK7p/

The Most Important Race on Your Ballot Is Probably the One You're Skipping

By the Libertarian Party of Kitsap County

Every election year, voters are bombarded with campaigns for president, governor, Congress, and the Legislature. Millions of dollars are spent on advertising. Endless headlines tell us which races matter most.

Then we reach the judicial section of the ballot.

Many voters pause, recognize none of the names, and either guess or leave it blank entirely.

That may be one of the most consequential mistakes a voter can make.

For libertarians, judicial elections are not secondary. They are among the most important races on the ballot because courts ultimately decide the limits of government power and the meaning of our constitutional rights.

The Courts Are Where Rights Live or Die

Legislatures pass laws. Governors sign them. Bureaucracies enforce them.

Judges determine whether those laws can stand.

The Washington Supreme Court is the final authority on interpreting the Washington Constitution and state law. Its decisions affect every Washingtonian and shape legal precedent for years or even decades. Justices serve six-year terms, and the court regularly decides cases involving taxation, property rights, criminal justice, administrative authority, elections, and civil liberties.

For libertarians, this should immediately command our attention.

Government has an inherent tendency to accumulate power. The judiciary is one of the few institutions specifically designed to check that expansion. A court committed to constitutional principles can halt government overreach. A court willing to reinterpret rights according to political preferences can effectively expand state power without a single new law ever being passed.

This is why judicial elections matter.

Rights Are Only as Strong as the Courts That Defend Them

Americans often speak of constitutional rights as though they are self-executing.

They aren't.

The Constitution guarantees rights. Courts determine how those guarantees are interpreted and applied.

The right to free speech exists because courts have repeatedly defended it.
Property rights exist because courts have defined limits on what governments may take or regulate.
The rights of criminal defendants depend upon courts enforcing due process protections.
Privacy rights often hinge on judicial decisions regarding searches, surveillance, and government authority.
The same is true of the right to keep and bear arms.

The United States Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen significantly changed how the Second Amendment is understood and protected.

Those cases didn't originate in Congress.
They were decided by judges.

Whether your issue is gun rights, free speech, religious liberty, property rights, privacy, criminal justice reform, or government accountability, eventually your rights end up in a courtroom.

And when they do, judges matter.

Why Libertarians Pay So Much Attention; And Why You Should Too

Libertarians tend to pay close attention to judicial elections because our political philosophy is rooted in a simple idea:

Power should be limited.

We believe governments exist to protect rights, not to grant them. We believe constitutions exist to restrain power, not merely describe it. And we recognize that courts are often the last line of defense when those limits are tested.

History shows that government power rarely expands because citizens consciously surrender their liberty all at once. More often, it expands incrementally through decisions, precedents, and interpretations that gradually shift the boundaries of what government may do.

Judges play an enormous role in that process.

A court can enforce constitutional limits and protect individual rights.
A court can also defer broadly to government authority and allow state power to grow.

That's why libertarians pay attention.
But you don't have to be a libertarian to care about any of this.

If you value free speech, you should care.
If you care about fair treatment by the justice system, you should care.
If you care about property rights, parental rights, privacy, religious freedom, or the right to defend yourself, you should care.
If you believe government officials should be accountable to the Constitution and not merely their own policy preferences, you should care.

Judicial elections are about far more than politics. They are about where power begins, where it ends, and whether the rights we all claim to cherish remain meaningful when they are tested.

Why These Races Are So Often Ignored

Judicial races receive little media attention. Candidates usually raise less money and attract fewer headlines than candidates for legislative or executive offices.

Most voters cannot identify the candidates.
Many races are decided by relatively small numbers of informed voters.
This creates an unusual opportunity.
An informed minority can have an outsized influence on who sits on the state's highest court.

For a movement built around the defense of individual liberty and constitutional limits, judicial races should never be an afterthought.

They should be a priority.

The 2026 Washington Supreme Court Elections

This year, Washington voters will decide five of the nine seats on the Washington Supreme Court, making it one of the most significant judicial election cycles in recent memory.

The candidates are:
Position 1 – Unexpired Two-Year Term
Colleen Melody
Laura Christensen Colberg
Scott Edwards

Position 3 – Regular Six-Year Term
Jaime Michelle Hawk
David Stevens
Mike Diaz

Position 4 – Regular Six-Year Term
Ian Birk
Sean O'Donnell

Position 5 – Unexpired Two-Year Term
Greg Miller
Theo Angelis
Dave Larson
Sharonda Amamilo

Position 7 – Regular Six-Year Term
David R. Shelvey
Debra L. Stephens
Karim A. Merchant
Todd A. Bloom

These races are officially nonpartisan. But nonpartisan does not mean non-ideological.

Every judge has a judicial philosophy.

Some place greater emphasis on textual interpretation and constitutional limits. Others are more willing to defer to legislatures and administrative agencies. Some approach rights expansively; others take a narrower view. Some emphasize judicial restraint, while others see the courts as playing a broader role in shaping public policy.

Those differences matter.
They influence how judges approach every case that comes before them.

Voting Is Not an Endorsement of Government

Some libertarians become disillusioned with politics and conclude that voting changes nothing.
The frustration is understandable.

Government frequently disappoints us. Politicians routinely promise more than they deliver. Liberty often seems to lose ground regardless of who wins.

But refusing to vote in judicial races does not limit government power.
It merely removes your voice from one of the few places where constitutional limits can still be defended.

Voting is not an act of worship toward government.
It is an act of self-government.

It is one of the tools free people possess to influence who interprets the laws that govern them.

If you believe government should remain constrained by the Constitution, then judicial elections deserve your attention.

If you believe rights exist independently of government and should be vigorously protected, then judicial elections deserve your attention.

If you believe power should be divided and checked rather than concentrated and unchecked, then judicial elections deserve your attention.

The Libertarian Bottom Line

The judicial section of the ballot may not be exciting.

There are no rallies. There are few television ads. Most voters cannot name a single candidate.

But these races matter profoundly.
A governor may serve four years.
A legislator may serve two.
A Supreme Court justice can shape constitutional law for a generation.

The Washington Supreme Court will decide cases involving individual rights, government authority, property, taxation, criminal justice, and the meaning of constitutional protections long after this election is over.

Libertarians often say that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Part of that vigilance is paying attention to the judges.

Research the candidates. Examine their records. Understand their judicial philosophies.

Then vote.

Because when citizens skip judicial races, they are not opting out of the system.

They are allowing others to decide how their rights will be interpreted.