Mark Lindquist recall, Pierce County, Washington (2016)

• Recall efforts
  • Recall efforts by state
  • Recall efforts by office
  • Recall efforts by year
  • Upcoming recall elections
• Local recalls
  • City council recalls
  • Mayoral recalls
  • County commission recalls
  • County official recalls
  • School board recalls
  • Sheriff recalls
  • Special district recalls
• State and federal recalls
  • State executive recalls
  • State legislator recalls
  • U.S. Congress recalls
• Laws governing recall
  • States that have pre-petition signature requirements for recalls
  • States that require grounds for recalls
• Analysis
  • What are recalls?
  • Recall terms
  • 2024 mid-year analysis
  • 2023 year-end analysis
  • 2023 mid-year analysis
  • 2022 year-end analysis
  • 2022 mid-year analysis
  • 2021 year-end analysis
  • 2021 mid-year analysis
  • 2020 year-end analysis
  • 2020 mid-year analysis
  • 2019 year-end analysis
  • 2019 mid-year analysis
  • 2018 year-end analysis
  • 2018 mid-year analysis
  • 2017 year-end analysis
  • 2017 mid-year analysis
  • 2016 year-end analysis
  • 2016 mid-year analysis

Pierce County Prosecutor recall
Officeholders
Mark Lindquist
Recall status
Did not go to a vote
See also
Recall overview Political recall efforts, 2016 Recalls in Washington Washington recall laws County official recalls Recall reports

An effort in Pierce County, Washington, to recall Mark Lindquist from his position as county prosecutor was officially launched on June 24, 2015, but did not go to a vote. Backers of the recall campaign announced that they did not have the required amount of signatures to get the recall on the ballot.

Recall supporters

The recall papers served to Lindquist by Firecrest resident Cheryl Iseberg alleged that Lindquist misused his power as county prosecutor, broke discrimination laws, created a hostile and racially prejudiced work environment and wasted taxpayer money. Specifically, Iseberg accused Lindquist of hiring and promoting more attractive female workers, using intimidation tactics against deputy prosecutors that disagreed with him, instructing employees to maneuver around the Public Records Act and using county funds for frivolous and personally motivated prosecutions.

Recall supporters argued that Lindquist used reassignments to punish people for disagreeing with him and focused on the physical attractiveness of prospective employees in a discriminatory manner.

Statement of charges

The official statement of charges brought against Lindquist in the recall petition listed 12 counts of misconduct. The charges included:

“

vindictive prosecution and obstruction of justice violation of employment discrimination laws misuse of public funds creating a racially hostile workplace abuse of power

”

Recall supporter arguments

The following summary of the charges brought against Lindquist were listed on the Recall Mark Lindquist website:

“	He believes justice is a commodity rather than a fair outcome. He buys loyalty using titles and raises from taxpayer dollars rather than earning it through professional integrity. Patronage over merit has resulted in poor decision making and bad behavior tapping the County’s liability reserves. He is a bully who lacks professional grace, to include maintaining an enemies list of professionals who point out his injustices. He is consumed with self-promotion, draining public resources more wisely devoted to actual service delivery. He refuses to be independent and has published an unprecedented number of press releases commenting on the guilt of persons he accuses of wrongdoing who are entitled to the presumption of innocence. He has failed to be transparent and insists upon conducting the public’s business in private, avoiding accountability.	”
—Recall Mark Lindquist

The Recall Mark Lindquist website also gave the following arguments for his recall:

“	Lindquist’s intimidation tactics and unethical conduct caused two well-respected prosecutors to file whistleblower complaints against him. Mark Lindquist continues to place his own interests above the public. He wastes tax dollars on frivolous and vindictive cases. The cost to the public currently totals nearly $1,000,000. Legal fees to protect Lindquist’s personal phone records in Nissen v. Pierce County alone amount to $282,490, as reported in the Tacoma News Tribune on 06/10/15. Lindquist sought and obtained $669,211 from the county to pay for outside legal counsel for frivolous and irresponsible litigation, as reported in the Tacoma News Tribune on 06/02/15.	”
—Recall Mark Lindquist

Recall opponents

Response from Mark Lindquist

Lindquist gave the following unofficial response to being served with recall papers, "Every day, we hear from people asking us to keep up the good work, protecting the community from criminals. And that's exactly what we're going to do. As Russell Wilson recently said, 'We're going to tune out the noise and keep doing our jobs.'"

On December 8, 2015, after an update from petitioners on the signature gathering progress, Lindquist stated in an email, "I’m focused on making our community safer and serving the public. I speak with community groups regularly and most everyone tells me the same thing: ‘Keep up the good work. Keep putting away the bad guys.’” Alex Hays, Lindquist's campaign chairman, predicted that the recall effort would not succeed. Hays said, “From what we’ve seen, the public support for Mark Lindquist is very strong, and it’s bipartisan. We are seeing no success for the signature-gathering effort. It’s our expectation that it will fail.”

Background

Whistleblower complaints and lawsuit

Before the recall effort was launched, two whistleblower complaints were filed against Mark Lindquist. The complaints contained allegations similar to those found in the recall papers. The first complaint was filed by Deputy Prosecutor Steve Merrival. Merrival said, "The atmosphere is total repression and fear. Individuals are in a very unhealthy manner, afraid to speak the truth."

The second was submitted by Chief Criminal Deputy Steve Penner, who waived confidentiality because, he claimed, he was afraid Lindquist would treat others unfairly if he suspected they had filed the complaint. Penner's complaint accused Lindquist of giving better assignments to attractive people. The complaint stated, "Lindquist has jokingly used the phrase 'the person meets our hiring criteria' as a euphemism for being physically attractive." The complaint also claimed Lindquist punished those who disagreed with him, thereby creating a "culture of fear." The complaints cited the Pierce County Sheriff's lawsuit against Lindquist, which claimed he retaliated against her because she backed his opponent in a past election, and a case involving a woman named Lynn Dalsing.

Historical recalls
Recall news
Recall laws
Recall Portal

Lynn Dalsing case

One of the key cases cited by proponents of Lindquist's recall in court involved a woman named Lynn Dalsing. In 2010 and 2014, county prosecutors charged Dalsing with knowing of and assisting in the molestation of her 7-year-old daughter. Michael Dalsing, Lynn's husband, was convicted of child rape. The accusations against Lynn were dismissed by judges in each instance. Recall proponents pointed to this series of events as evidence of vindictive prosecution by Lindquist.

Concerning the Dalsing case, Lindquist said, “Our office charged Lynn Dalsing for one reason only — evidence showed she assisted in the crimes of Child Rape, Molestation and Sexual Exploitation. Judges repeatedly found probable cause for the filing of these charges. I’m confident the people of Pierce County will support our efforts to pursue justice for the young victims and for our community.”

Jeff Helsdon, the attorney representing recall petitioner Cheryl Iseberg, replied to Lidquist's statement concerning Lynn Dalsing by saying, "Mr. Lindquist continues to trot out the false statement that he stacked new charges on Lynn Dalsing because there was new evidence. Unfortunately for Mr. Lindquist, two judges saw things very differently. Judge Murphy held that the second criminal case against Lynn Dalsing was the product of a vindictive prosecution, and he dismissed the case. Judge Roof has now found factual and legal sufficiency for the charge that Mr. Lindquist abused his authority.”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing recall in Washington

In Washington, recall petitions can only be circulated against an official who is guilty of the "commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office." Thus, before a recall petition could be circulated, the Pierce County Superior Court needed to rule on whether or not the allegations against Lindquist had some basis in evidence and amount to malfeasance—the deliberate commission of a wrong or criminal action—misfeasance—improper or erroneous action—or a violation of his oath of office. Recall proponents ultimately got a green light from the court. They needed to collect valid signatures equal to 25 percent of the votes cast for all candidates in the last election for the office of county prosecutor. This signature requirement came out to 38,642 signatures in Lindquist's case. Petitioners had six months to collect signatures, with a deadline in late February 2016. On February 9, petitioners announced they did not have enough signatures for the recall to succeed. Two weeks before the deadline, they only had about 13,000 signatures.

Court case

On August 4, 2015, Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Jay Roof heard arguments from Jeff Helsdon, who represented recall petitioner Cheryl Iseberg and Mark Hood, who represented Lindquist. On August 7, 2015, Judge Roof ruled that the recall effort could proceed, declaring there was enough evidence for the plausibility of Lindquist being guilty of “engaging in a vindictive prosecution of a Pierce County woman; withholding evidence, and obstructing justice.” Vindictive prosecution was one of 12 charges brought against Lindquist by recall proponents. The other eleven charges were dismissed by Judge Roof. One charge of intimidation and retaliation was found to be "factually sufficient" but not "legally sufficient," which meant Roof decided there was enough evidence to indicate the alleged actions occurred but that the actions were not inappropriate enough to amount to malfeasance. Lindquist had 15 days to appeal Roof's decision.

Responding to the 12 charges Helsdon brought against Lindquist justifying the recall effort, Hood said, "Somebody actually needs to have knowledge. You can't put 10 people in a room, start a rumor, and have them all agreeing to it and suddenly have knowledge that a recall component can rely [sic]."

In a statement released in the afternoon of August 4, 2015, Lindquist said, "In our business, if you do your job effectively and hold people accountable, you're going to make some folks unhappy."

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term "Mark + Lindquist + recall"

Mark Lindquest recall News Feed

See also

• County official recalls
• Recall campaigns in Washington
• Political recall efforts, 2015
• Political recall efforts, 2016

External links

• Recall Mark Lindquist website and Facebook page
• Jaycee Fuller: Mark Lindquist Truth website