The subdued Democratic campaign for King County Prosecutor

It's a rare opportunity for the Dems to grab it: Styles, politics, and everything else might change, but Republican occupation of the prosecutor's office goes back to the Harry Truman era.

King County Prosecutor candidates (from top) Dan Satterberg, Bill Sherman, and Keith Scully.

King County Prosecutor candidates (from top) Dan Satterberg, Bill Sherman, and Keith Scully.

There is something odd about the campaign for King County Prosecutor. Democrats have the best chance in decades to take the office, but so far it's a quiet race. After longtime incumbent Norm Maleng died in May, his chief of staff, Dan Satterberg, seemed anointed by Maleng's family and by much of the legal community as dauphin in a long line of Republicans dating back to the Harry Truman era. Not much has dramatically changed the perception some have that Satterberg will follow Maleng, just as Maleng followed his boss, Christopher T. Bayley in 1978. Historians may correct me, but it's been a solid run of Republican prosecutors interrupted only by Lloyd Shorett for six years in the 1940s and Warren Magnuson for two years in the in the 1930s. It's almost as if the prosecutor's office was coated in a kind of armor, preserved and protected for the GOP despite a huge shift over the years to Democratic dominance in other offices. The long string of GOP victories derives from Maleng, whose integrity, steadiness, and commitment to nonpartisanship in the office denied an opening to a potential Democratic challenger; and from Charles O. Carroll, whose authoritarianism and excesses gave rise to a corrective movement that came from within his own party. Bayley defeated Carroll in the 1970 GOP primary. So Satterberg has not only the party's blessing but, more important, at least as his campaign would suggest, the mantle of moderate, steady leadership that puts him on course to fill the remaining three years of Maleng's term. Unless, of course, voters have something else in mind. That's where two Democrats, Keith Scully and Bill Sherman, come in. They are competing in the Aug. 21 primary for a chance to beat Satterberg in November. (A more prominent Democrat, King County Council member Bob Ferguson, briefly considered a run.) Whoever wins the general election will gain one of the most important elected offices in Washington. The King County Prosecutor not only heads one of the state's largest law firms and makes countless decisions, including whether to seek the death penalty, that person plays a major role in criminal justice across the state as a leading advocate for policies on sentencing, drug and mental health treatment, and municipal law. And since hundreds of lawyers go through the office as employees, the prosecutor serves as mentor to those who go on to serve in private practice or as judges. (Maleng was an exceptionally beloved boss.) Hoping to gain this job are Scully, 34, and Sherman, 39. Both are attractive and articulate but little known. Only Sherman has run before, placing third in the 2006 Democratic primary for the 43rd legislative district. In this race, Sherman bagged many of the prominent Democratic endorsements, such as former Mayor Norm Rice, Mayor Greg Nickels, state House Speaker Frank Chopp, and others. Sherman is on leave from his job as a deputy prosecutor, a position he's held since 2003. He also served as a clerk to federal judges, an attorney in the Davis Wright Tremaine law firm, and as an assistant to former U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. He graduated from law school in 1999. Scully is a former deputy prosecutor who left that post after six years to take a job as a United Nations war-crimes prosecutor. Returned to Seattle in 2006, he works for the environmental organization Futurewise. He graduated from law school in 1998. The son of a firefighter, Scully also is a former paramedic. He says he has not sought endorsements from elected officials because he wants to remain independent. I got a chance to hear the candidates speak last Saturday at a forum organized by Women in Unity, an African-American organization. Turnout was poor. Maybe six voters attended. Satterberg was a no-show because of a schedule conflict. In their forum comments and in interviews later, Scully and Sherman spoke respectfully of each other, even of Satterberg, though both said they heard of negative campaigning coming from the Republican side. Scully suggested he might look more broadly at changes to the office than Sherman might, but neither positioned himself as a dramatic reformer. Both wanted the criminal justice system to do more for juveniles and drug offenders who need treatment. Sherman said he was disappointed the prosecutor's office had not taken a "leadership role" about issues with accountability in the Seattle Police Department and the King County Sheriff's Office. Scully likes New York City's system of a civilian review board. Sherman pledged to personally prosecute at least one case a year. "What we need is not a caretaker, but a leader," he said. The organization of the office has become rigid and bureaucratic, he said. Scully said "the re-entry" system for convicts transitioning from prison to the community was broken because of cutbacks in the supervision system and inadequate housing and job assistance. He wants to re-organize the fraud division to handle a broader set of cases, not just crimes over $100,000. He wants to create an environmental unit to go after polluters. At 47, Satterberg is now interim head of the King County Prosecutor's Office, where he's worked 22 years, handling cases involving homicides, gangs, drugs, and assault. He served as chief of staff for 17 years. He graduated from law school in 1985. Surprisingly for such a longtimer in leadership of that office, Satterberg goes down a long list of changes he wants to make, such as the handling of involuntary commitments and lower-level drug cases. He defends the office's handling of police misconduct cases and says the office is working behind the scenes to make improvements in the accountability system. Satterberg cites his experience as a key edge over his opponents. He says, for example, that more than 200 deputies in the office have more experience as prosecutor than Sherman. "Experience matters in this job," said Satterberg. "I'm disappointed that Dan has taken the traditional Republican tactic of negative personal attacks," Sherman replied. On his web site, Satterberg emphasizes his closeness to Maleng: "Dan was Norm Maleng's right-hand man for 17 years, and counseled Norm on every major case and issue faced by the office over that span of time." Satterberg promises continuity, maintaining "the legacy of fair and non-political professionalism that has served this office and the citizens of King County for over three decades." Satterberg has racked up for endorsements a long list of prominent Republicans, including former U.S. Attorney John McKay, plus James Kelly of the Urban League, prominent Democratic lawyer Jenny Durkan, and some labor groups. But even so, as a novice candidate largely unknown to voters, Satterberg is no shoo-in. GOP stalwarts may be surprised at Satterberg's style. Rather than talk tough, Giuliani-style, about law and order, Satterberg is very much like his old boss, kinder and gentler in tone. At his campaign kickoff July 19, Satterberg talked about helping kids, getting drug offenders out of prisons and into treatment, "leading the nation in compassion," and greeting low-level offenders with "a warm shower, hot soup, and a case manager, instead of a concrete holding cell." It's entertaining to consider what tough-guy Carroll might have thought about his interim successor's blatantly sentimental speech, one that also quoted John Lennon, that pot-smoking, war-protesting, posing-in-the-nude-with-Yoko hippie. But then, Satterberg also found a way to work in another revolutionary, J.P. Patches. Doubtless, Carroll would have just sat there, gritting his teeth about the soft talk but at least acknowledging the result, a GOP ownership of sorts of that office. And if Satterberg wins this time, it's likely he'll stay there a long, long time.

About the Author

O. Casey Corr is a Seattle writer who has worked for The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He now is employed at Seattle University as director of strategic communications. You can e-mail him at casey.corr@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Jul 25, 3:30 p.m. Inappropriate

"Negative Republican attacks" and the issue of experience: Good article. Because I endorsed Satterberg (at the request of a friend who is a staunch Democrat), I received a letter the other day from Sherman. The contents of the letter can be summed up as follows: 1) "vote for me because I'm a Democrat and Satterberg is a Republican"; and 2) "Satterberg's campaign has been engaged in dirty Republican tactics."

Every time I see a quote from Sherman in the press, this story included, it is about Satterberg proponents engaged in "dirty politics" and "personal attacks," almost always with the word "Republican" attached as an adjective. Like what? Sherman needs to put forth the goods. His lack of experience is a legitimate issue when we're talking about managing 250+ lawyers pursuing justice and safety for the citizens of King County. Lawyers who have made careers out of trying homicide and sexual assault cases will not do well taking orders from someone who's never supervised another lawyer and who's experience doing felony trials is limited to one rotation in the domestic violence unit interrupted by two leaves of absence to campaign. You may see a large exodus for higher paying jobs.

Sherman seems like a smart guy and a capable politician. The fact that Democratic elected officials like Pierce County Prosecutor Gerald Horne and Snohomish County Prosecutor Janice Ellis (as well as prominent Democrats like defense attorney Jenny Durkan) support Satterberg suggest that there is some merit to the issue of his experience.

Or could it be that they are concerned that Sherman's track record and endorsement list suggest that he's more concerned about a political career than perpetuating the nonpartisan stability and pursuit of justice that Norm Maleng and Dan Satterberg have brought for the last 20 years? Maybe that's a "negative personal attack" (don't forget the "Republican"!) but to me it is a legitimate issue.
T

Posted Wed, Jul 25, 4:36 p.m. Inappropriate

"He'll stay there a long, long time.": If Satterberg wins, "he'll stay there a long, long time."

This is why the voters of King County must vote for Dan Satterberg. For over 20 years, Mr. Satterberg has dedicated his professional life to the King County Prosecutor's Office. He has shown that he loves nothing more than the men and women of this office and the people of King County. If he didn't leave after being second fiddle to Norm for all those years, he's certainly not planning on leaving now.

If Mr. Sherman or Mr. Scully are elected, they will serve for 3 years... then what? A bid for Mayor of Seattle? A bid for King County Executive? What about the US Senate? It is debatable whether either of them are qualified to be the King County Prosecutor. What does not appear, to this voter, to be debatable is whether they see this position as merely a stepping stone. Of course they do.

Sure Norm sought higher offices during his tenure as the King County Prosecutor. But it is when he gave up that quest that this office shaped itself into the finest metropolitan prosecutor's office in the country... when it operated free of partisan politics and the lingering question of "who will be in charge in four years?"

Mr. Satterberg will continue what Norm created... an office founded on justice and doing the "RIGHT" thing, not what the Right want or what the Left want. Let's not install a revolving door in the King County Prosecutor's Office. Elect someone who will "stay here a long, long time."

Posted Wed, Jul 25, 5:09 p.m. Inappropriate

(R) or (D), who cares?: I'm am so sick of hearing about Republican this and Demorcrat that. All 3 candidates unanimously agree that politics should stay out of the prosecutor's office. So I challenge the media and all 3 candidates to never use the words Democrat or Republican again when it comes to this race. Simply tell me why one is better suited for this position than the other two. Can you do that? I bet not. It is much easier to stick the terms "Republican" or "Democrat" into as many soundbites as you can and skirt the real issue. Politics stink and the citizens of King County deserve better.

Posted Wed, Jul 25, 6:36 p.m. Inappropriate

Bill Sherman: has the experience to do the job. He is the same age as Maleng was when he was first elected, and has more experience than Rob McKenna did when he was elected AG.

This is a seat that has been held by the GOP since the 50's. Perhaps Walt Crowley can correct me, but the last Dem KCP was Warren Magnuson.

Bill Sherman has courtroom experience that is recent. Satterburg, while certainly a decent guy, has been backbenching for most of the last 10 years.

Bill is top notch.

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 7:07 a.m. Inappropriate

Who will protect the voters of King County?: I belive that we need someone who is not afraid to follow the stench at KCE and prosecute the ACORN fraud cases to the fullest. If they will not clean up the county's own house, how can they be trusted to protect society from street criminals ?

Cameron

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 8:44 a.m. Inappropriate

Bill Sherman - for the Long Haul: Since coming back to Seattle three years ago, I've met and dealt with dozens and dozens of politicians of both parties.

Bill is one of the most considerate and thoughtful of them all. He listens respectfully and speaks articulately. His priorities are the priorities of a majority of the people of King County. And he has a ton of direct experience.

If, as has been the custom, we are electing someone who will be in this office for a long time, I want that person to be Bill Sherman.
Lynn

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 10:51 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Bill Sherman - for the Long Haul: Goodness gracious, what can possibly lead you to think that Bill would stick around for the "long haul"? Go to his website and look at his resume, his longest stint at ANY job has been the four years he's been in the prosecutors office. And that's been interrupted twice when he's walked away from his caseload to go indulge his political ambitions.

T

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 11:55 a.m. Inappropriate

Just the facts maam: ...as Joe Friday would say.

Spinning a worthy fact as you are can be counterproductive. It is something worth knowing, but don't oversell it - you'll get more bang, if you will.

-D

Posted Thu, Jul 26, noon Inappropriate

RE: Bill Sherman - for the Long Haul: Sorry "T," I'm just not getting your point. Why should Bill Sherman's diverse resume (federal govt., private practice, KC prosecutor) be considered a drawback? Satterberg has never held a job outside of the prosecutor's office and would likely continue Maleng's policies and personal relationships, so I understand why much of the legal community supports him. But why should ordinary citizens defer to the lawyers' club on such an important choice?

J.R.

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:17 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: Bill Sherman - for the Long Haul: J.R. -- I was responding to the prior post about Bill Sherman "for the Long Haul." Bill's resume is diverse--particularly for a 39-year-old. My original question was not answered: what gives us any reason to think he'd stick around? Anyone?

T

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:18 p.m. Inappropriate

The right amount of turnover: The right amount of turnover is a tough management call. Too much, whether by intent, or circumstance, can be disruptive. However too much stability is also bad.

I've no doubt that Norm Maleng was about a good a boss as they come. There do seem to be a lot of former employees that go on to blossom. The only exceptions to that that I am personally aware of are that meth dealer and Mark Sidran, who is not fit to practice law in the service of the public, and perhaps not for the private sector either.

The law is the law, and when you use the judgement to apply a different standard to politically active individuals than you do your own staff you've got big problems, regardless of how much you are doing right.

I've such an experience, and even thow thrown out on appeal both the prosecutor and his boss have been promoted to judgeships with the county - the boss quite rapidly. As my situation concerned being accused of harrasment for asking government officials to do their jobs as well as holding the public to the same standards of fiscal management to the public as they are required to do for any other client I have been reluctant to challenge anyone in that office for fear of continuing retaliation.

That may have been a mistake - Maleng may well have been professionally responsive. Satterberg may well also be, and he is certainly in the accountability loop - being a relatively new chief of staff during the time frame of my problem.

I do plan to communicate with Satterberg and his response to my concerns will be the biggest factor for me. Hopefully I still have enough credibility for that interaction to be a factor with a few folks that still have much more influence than I.

A general issue that should be of concern to everyone is the role of the office in the elections office problems. Lawyers are always in the 'span of control' of all corporate decision making, and have partial accountability for everything. They should take action to prevent such problems from happening. Perhaps there has been too much turnover in those that oversee elections? In any case, Ron Sims filing a disbarment action to fire the responsible attorney, even if it is Satterberg, would have a lot more credibility instead of telling us whom he 'might' fire in the future.

-Douglas Tooley
Tacoma, WA

PS1 - Even if Jenny Durkan did go to the Jackie O. estate auction she may well be as much a Republican as Mary Cheney and her Father.

PS2- Mark Sidran will tell you that the management of public funds is subject to debate and that standards of fiscal responsibility do not directly apply. I'd also remind him about his statements regarding 'small things matter' when talking about Giulianni style behavior reforms.

PS3 - I was actually at the start of the Satterberg coronation before the KC Council. Too bad the Republicans didn't put anyone up who was actually interested in competing with Satterberg before the Council, who had final say. Curious also was the resemblance to the character Dwight Schrute on the 'Office' - stronger in person than by photo alone.
-Douglas Tooley

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:19 p.m. Inappropriate

Scully will settle into the job just fine: I share this poster's concern that we get a prosecutor who's excited about the job itself, not the platform it provides for future campaigns. I can say a word to Scully's motivation, as he and I discussed this years before this election. Keith loves the law and went to prosecute war crimes in The Hague to get broader prosecutorial experience. He, like others, figured Maleng wasn't leaving his post soon, but when the chance came to succeed Maleng, Keith jumped at the chance. This is *the* job he seeks. He is "politically inexperienced", as some say, because politics isn't his first love. The law is.

Bottom line: Put Keith Scully in the office and you not only get the best prosecutor but also one who will wear out the leather in the office's chair.
jgastil

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:31 p.m. Inappropriate

Experience, Vision, and Politics: Experience is a fair issue for any elected office, but this poster's gotta remember: Maleng had no more experience than Scully or Sherman when he took the office. With experience, the question is really, "Do you have enough?" Not "Who has more?" Over-abundance of experience is not necessarily a plus: Many of Bush Jr.'s most notorious appointees were replete with legal, political, and military experience (VP, Sec of Defense, Supreme Court, etc.).

I'm a Scully backer, and Scully not only has ample experience but the best vision for the office. His platform on prosecuting fraud and environmental crimes is dead on. Its all well and good to pass tough laws, but someone has to step up and enforce them. Scully's targeting crimes that don't always make the headlines but really tear up people's lives and our larger human habitat.

On a final note, I'm glad Scully is focused on talking up his platform more than attacking his opponent. But having run many a campaign back in the day, I have to say I have sympathy for some of Sherman's "attacks" on Satterberg. After all, Satterberg and his boosters talk as though he already has the job sewn up. They're talkin' like an elected incumbent, more than a frontrunner. That posture--and its reception by some media--makes you a target. Challengers always have to go after the incumbent, and Satterberg has essentially pronounced, "Come at me, ye scurvy dogs."

So as long as the attacks are substantive and relevant, they're fair game.
jgastil

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 2:50 p.m. Inappropriate

My superficial take from looking at websites ...: To calibrate my comments below properly, please realize that I dislike Republicans as a species, and that Democrats are on a nearby Galapagos island:

Satterberg seems to be in the midst of many current issues as befits his current leadership role. He seems dedicated and effective. I think the long experience is a big advantage when taking over an office that is already operating well. I don't sense any negatives, but that's just me and my impression from looking at the website.

Scully seems to inexperienced. The Hague work seemed to me to be both a plus and a minus -- like saying you were in the Peace Corps. He seems more interested in anticipating new crimes than in fighting existing crime. I do like someone who "will wear out the leather" in the office's chair, but I'm not sure if that means he'll put in long nights or will be sitting when he should be out meeting with people. I also think that his recent experience fighting environmental crime is a far cry from some of the uglier stuff that both Satterberg and Sherman seem to have experience with. His web site seems to pander to the unions, rather than simply say that he supports them. His take on punishment and rehabilitation is dead on. He notes that environmental laws are scattered, as if that's a bad thing. By being scattered they create a legal web that is pretty good at protecting the environment. He wants to create an environmental enforcement unit, which seems to me unnecessary. Every municipality has the equivalent of a DDES; besides citizens in general are already a little too prone to report on their neighbor's suspected environmental failings.

Sherman seems to me to marry front-line experience with purpose, which should be a good combination. However, my impression is that he seems as intent on fighting bureaucracy within the Prosecutor's Office as fighting crime outside it, so seems to me to lose the forest for the trees. Although bureaucracy is one of the evils of the Western world, I'm not sure that this should be one of his most important goals as a Prosecuting Attorney. His intention to keep his hand in trying at least one case a year, seems good, but may not be practical or pragmatic in the position he's running for (although I have seen this approach to work both succeed and fail, depending on temperament). I had a bit of a worry that he might not be effective in managing the people under him, and will be more a lone gun slinger. But in reviewing his website again, I get the impression that he's personable and works well with people. (The fact that both his kids are happy and smiling in his family photo shot is a good sign. Sometimes you see the parents smiling and the kids expressionless. But, ah, the fickle electorate! They judge the candidate on his smile!) He was editor of his Law Review, which suggests smarts and the ability to communicate and work well with others. The people factor is a key one, and important enough that I give him the nod over Satterberg, who is otherwise superlative.


None of the above has anything to do with D-ness or R-ness. If Sherman is running by trying to associate Satterberg with Bush and Republican sleaziness I just don't think he'll get much traction. When "Horse's Ass" sez Sherman is "top notch" this suggests Sherman pandering to the politics of polarization. I could easily be wrong, but yesterday HA was calling Emory Bundy right wing, so I guess I'm suspicious that HA is wont to provide cartoon characterizations of everyone political. don't think I have a clue what his "top notch" means. Far left? Potential activist judge? Drinking buddy? Large donor? Has read John Rawls? However, I can grudgingly be magnanimous, and must concur with HA that Sherman is my preference.
Stuka

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 5:57 p.m. Inappropriate

Who's better qualified?: If you get rid of the (R) and (D) next to their names, then the only question to ask yourself is "Who's more qualified/suited for the job?" People keep talking about Mr. Sherman being a nice guy or that he has good values. But the truth is that they are both nice guys and they both have good values. If you actually spoke with both candidates, you'd see that their "values" are similar: protect the most vulnerable (children and elderly), domestic violence is bad, juvenile justice needs reform, drug treatment is good, etc. So please, stop with the Bill Sherman is nice and has values, and the GOP is evil and has had this position for 18 million years nonsense.

Who is better qualified/suited to run this office? I'd have to say that the answer is Mr. Satterberg. It's pretty obvious to me that he really wants this job and that he's not using it as a political stepping stone. I cannot say that about Mr. Sherman. Mr. Satterberg has the experience to effectively manage the prosecuting attorney's office. Mr. Sherman does not. Mr. Satterberg has the respect of the legal community (as evidenced by his endorsements). Mr. Sherman does not (his endorsements are mostly politically connected). And the list goes on. Oh, and please stop with the Bill Sherman/Norm Maleng 30 years ago comparisons. This is not a race between Bill Sherman and Norm Maleng 30 years ago. This is a race between Bill Sherman and Dan Satterberg.

Before people start jumping down my throat and defending Mr. Sherman, let me say that I agree that he is a nice guy and that he has good vaules. I like him. In fact, I supported him in his last race. I'm just saying that Mr. Satterberg is better qualified for this particular job. I am registered (D), but this time, I'm going to have to vote for a (R). I just wish that others could look beyond the label as well.

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 6:36 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: Who's better qualified?: Couldn't have said it better myself, AverageGuy. To expound a bit, Sherman is not qualified because he simply doesn't have the experience to run such an office. Everyone talks of his "trial experience." Please. He has been in the office for four years and he has barely even started prosecuting felony jury trials. He has NO experience with murder cases or sexual assault cases. Moreoever, trial experience is not what is important in running the prosecutor's office. The elected is not there to try cases, but to make sure that justice is sought and served by those who work for him. Sherman says he will try one case per year. Frankly, I'd rather have my elected prosecutor taking care of his duties overseeing the Criminal, Civil, Family Support, and Fraud Divisions of the office rather than stuck in court for a week at a time.

Satterberg is simply the best qualified. I, too, am a Democrat, but I'll have no problem voting for the only person qualified for this job: Dan Satterberg.
Chuka

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 6:41 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: (R) or (D), who cares?: I care. And I have a sensible reason.

The one time I ever had cause to contact Norm Maleng's office, it was with regard to the despicable - and illegal - "caging" efforts of the local Republican party. A woman swore - under penaly of perjury - that she had personal knowledge that hundreds of voters did not live at their registered addresses. As you may recall, this called into question the right to vote of many folks who had perfectly accurate registrations, and attempted to disenfranchise others who had made minor errors on their registration forms. Most of this woman's "personal knowledge" turned out to be base supposition.

Was she prosecuted for her highly-publicized perjury? Did I even get a response to my inquiry? No.

This was sadly part of the larger Republican national strategy of targeting low-income and known-Democratic areas for voter suppression. And a Republican prosecutor's office will not pursue the issue. I trust Democrats more, when it comes to protecting our rights and civil liberties.

I'm happy that the acting Prosecutor is adequately qualified. Will I vote for him? No - he is a Republican, and subject to pressure from his party.
Carol M.

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 8:22 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: Bill Sherman - for the Long Haul: I happen to know (and strongly support) Bill, so take this for what it's worth.

When I first met him in 1999 or so -- he was a friend of a friend -- we chatted about what he wanted to do after his federal law clerkship. His response was something like "I want to be a prosecutor." If I recall correctly, he mentioned that working as a prosecutor had even been one of his motivations for going into law in the first place.

So I don't question his dedication to the job in the slightest. From what I can tell, KC prosecutor would be a destination rather than a stepping stone for Bill -- which, in my opinion, would be a fantastic thing for both King County and the prosecutor's office.
Clark W-D

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 10:51 p.m. Inappropriate

as I was saying...: It is unfortunate that you did not receive a response to your inquiry; however, to simply blame it on Republicans is ridiculous. What about the fact that the same prosecutor's office refused to investigate claims of voter fraud brought by Dino Rossi and the Republican party? Norm Maleng drew quite the ire from his own party, yet he did what he thought was right. I am not here to change your mind or tell you who to vote for. I just think it's irresponsible for people to blindly vote for people based soley on party affiliation.

Posted Thu, Jul 26, 10:52 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: as I was saying...: oops. I was trying to reply to Carol M.'s reply to my first post.

Posted Fri, Jul 27, 7:25 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Who's better qualified?: Satterberg, again, is a guy who has never held a job outside the KC prosecutor's office, will continue the policies of Maleng, and is the status quo candidate. Fair enough. What if voters don't want to continue the status quo? Read Rick Anderson's piece in the latest Seattle Weekly--under Maleng, the KC prosecutor has a well-deserved reputation for going easy on misbehaving cops in cases involving violence against citizens. Which candidate would be more likely to change this situation once in office? It's Sherman in a landslide.

J.R.

Posted Fri, Jul 27, 11 a.m. Inappropriate

RE: Bill Sherman - for the Long Haul: Clark W-D: If KC prosecutor is Bill's "destination," why on earth did he leave his job--as a KC prosecutor--to run for the legislature?

T

Posted Fri, Jul 27, 11:31 p.m. Inappropriate

RE: Who's better qualified?: "It's Sherman in a landslide." Why? Because he's a Democrat? Please. He's a politician, first and formost. I'll take the nonpolician any day of the week.

Plus, I seem to recall at least one case in which three King County Deputies were prosecuted for beating up a citizen and the jury, not the prosecutor's office, chose to do nothing. Sounds like the citizens screwed up that one.

However, if voters don't want he status quo, then you're right, they have the right to vote for someone else. But change just for the sake of change is a pretty stupid thing to do.
Chuka

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »