[media-credit name=’SUNDEEP MALLADI/Herald photo’ align=’alignnone’ width=’648′][/media-credit]Vying for the position of Wisconsin's "top cop," the attorney general candidates attacked each other's records and experience Wednesday during their final debate before the Nov. 7 election.

Republican J.B. Van Hollen, a former district attorney and U.S. attorney in two northwestern counties, charged that Democratic Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk doesn't have the necessary criminal-prosecution experience to handle the job of attorney general.

Wisconsin wants an attorney general with law-enforcement experience, Van Hollen said, and he can deliver.

But Falk, who has logged 14 years as an assistant state attorney general and 10 years as Dane County executive, accused Van Hollen of lacking the breadth of experience required to handle the position. She said the duties of the attorney general include not only trying criminal and civil cases, but also enforcing environmental laws, managing limited resources and working on social problems that can cause criminal actions.

"I have more, longer, broader, stronger, tougher experience than my opponent," Falk said. "He's running for the wrong office, and he's padded his résumé to get the job."

And much of the debate addressed issues that have resurfaced throughout the campaign, including how to handle the evidence backlog waiting for DNA testing in the state's Crime Lab.

Van Hollen said he could eliminate the DNA backlog by re-prioritizing and transforming outgoing litigators' positions into analyst positions. When asked if he would decline to run again if he didn't eliminate the backlog in his first term, Van Hollen said he "won't walk away" because his plan would take time.

Falk said Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle will provide her with 15 new analysts in the state budget, and called Van Hollen's proposal a "glib and unrealistic response."

And the debate, held at the Wisconsin State Bar headquarters in Madison, addressed a number of social issues facing the state.

Falk accused Van Hollen of being out of touch with Wisconsin values, saying he is trying to advance an "extreme" Republican agenda that includes banning gay marriage and letting people carry concealed weapons.

"I will stand up for Wisconsin," Falk said. "I fear my opponent will not."

But Van Hollen said he is not running a partisan campaign and will be a neutral law enforcer, adding he has the endorsement of 18 Democratic law-enforcement officials from across the state.

"Criminal justice is not just a theory for me," Van Hollen said.

When the proposed constitutional marriage amendment was brought up, the candidates were again divided.

Falk said she opposed the amendment, saying a similar amendment spawned much litigation in Michigan.

Van Hollen said from a legal perspective the amendment is "appropriate" and would prevent activist courts from saying current Wisconsin law — identifying marriage as between one man and one woman — is unconstitutional.

"If the people of the state of Wisconsin vote to solidify the law that the Legislature has previously passed, it will help protect what their desires are, what the desires of the Legislature are," he said. "It's a great idea."

The hour-long debate marked the fourth formal debate between the two candidates and was co-sponsored by the State Bar of Wisconsin, WisPolitics.com, the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wisconsin Radio Network and the Wisconsin Law Journal.