In King County, Dan Satterberg led 72 percent to 28 percent and won easy re-election. In Pierce County, incumbent Mark Lindquist trailed 63 percent to 37 percent, trailing his challenger.

Share story

King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg won an easy re-election victory with about 72 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s election. Meanwhile, in Pierce County, embattled incumbent Mark Lindquist trailed his challenger with 37 percent of the vote.

Satterberg, a three-term Republican-turned-Democrat whose office is now nonpartisan, faced his first-ever re-election challenge this year from public defender Daron Morris. However, Morris suspended his campaign in September, citing health reasons. His name still appeared on the ballot.

Morris ran to Satterberg’s left, promising to change the way the office charges minors, reduce the use of money bail and change plea-bargaining practices. Satterberg defended his time in office, saying he led a reduction in the number of criminal charges filed against juveniles and supported alternatives to incarceration. Morris had about 28 percent of the vote in initial results.

In Pierce County, Lindquist appeared in trouble after a bruising campaign. Challenger Mary Robnett, who previously worked as his chief criminal deputy prosecutor and is now an assistant attorney general, began her surprising upset when she beat Lindquist in the primary election. On Tuesday night, she led Lindquist with about 63 percent of the vote.

MORE RESULTS »

Lindquist touted his office’s efforts to prosecute repeat offenders and fight elder abuse. Robnett criticized the incumbent as focused on “image management” and “political loyalty.” Lindquist has faced a litany of controversies while in office, including an ongoing bar complaint alleging he jeopardized an ongoing trial by discussing the case on Nancy Grace’s show. He fought the release of text messages from his private phone. In 2015, a report by the News Tribune found that Pierce County led the state in cases overturned because of prosecutorial mistakes so “flagrant and ill-intentioned” that they couldn’t be solved by a judge’s instructions to the jury.