APPLETON P-C ENDORSES FALK FOR AG

Editorial: Falk best-suited to perform all duties of job
"Law enforcement" is a phrase commonly used but, ironically, probably not enough. The words evoke guns in holsters, flashing cruiser lights and handcuffs, and that's its primary context. However, no one refers to charging a business with improperly draining sewage into a public waterway as "law enforcement," even though it is.

By the same token, referring to the state attorney general as "Wisconsin's top law enforcement official" is accurate, but implies it's a job with a narrow duties when, in fact, it carries a wide range of responsibilities.

Democrat Kathleen Falk is better suited to handling those responsibilities than Republican J.B. Van Hollen, and receives our endorsement.

Since the primary, this race has been painted as a contest between the law enforcement czar and the ace administrator.

Van Hollen touts his tough-on-crime credentials and criminal court experience as a U.S. attorney while Falk notes that, as Dane County executive, she handled budget and personnel matters similar to those needed by the attorney general, who runs the state Department of Justice.

Falk has managed a $400 million-plus annual budget and 2,700 employees in her 10 years as the leader of Dane County.

Van Hollen oversaw about 50 people in three years as U.S. attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin.

Falk is far more prepared to run the DOJ and its $77 million budget from an administrative standpoint than her opponent.

A major point of contention that has arisen is the growing backlog of DNA evidence in criminal cases at the State Crime Lab. Falk would implement a 30-day time limit on matching DNA evidence from serious crimes with no suspect against a state database, and has joined with Gov. Jim Doyle to propose a $1.2 million plan to add 15 technicians to the lab.

Van Hollen has said he would address the backlog, in part, by outsourcing work from the lab. Passing evidence analysis along to outside vendors is a curious position for someone so closely focused on fighting crime.

Another issue is the amount of criminal casework performed by the candidates, with Van Hollen proclaiming he has spent far more time prosecuting criminal cases than Falk, who previously served as the state's public intervenor within the state Department of Justice until the position was eliminated.

That may be the case, but in the three years he was U.S. attorney, his office never ranked higher than 44th out of 93 offices in the percentage of Federal Bureau of Investigation referrals prosecuted, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. In fact, the office never prosecuted more than 55 FBI cases in one year; only 24 in his entire tenure were drug cases.

And here is where the biggest disconnect between perception and reality exists.

Addressing "crime," by Van Hollen's definition, is only one part of the district attorney's duties, and perhaps not even the largest.

Both candidates say they would avoid the courtroom, so trial experience shouldn't be a big issue. But Falk has worked on a wider variety of cases than Van Hollen, and has also worked on behalf of the state, which Van Hollen hasn't.

Her vision of the office as one that enforces all laws — civil, environmental and regulatory as well as criminal — is closer to what Wisconsin needs than Van Hollen's, which is too narrowly confined to criminal matters.

Wisconsin doesn't need a district attorney; it needs an attorney general, and Falk is the right person for the job.