I examined the qualifications of the judge's candidates and wonder who is being honest about their experience. It is clear one candidate's qualifications and experience far exceeds the other.

Don Anderson has 15 years of law enforcement experience. That experience includes being shot in the line of duty apprehending the person who had just murdered a fellow law enforcement officer.

He also has 28 years of experience as an attorney, with the last eight years as the elected district attorney. He has volunteered and performed the duties of a judge pro tem, judicial arbitrator, administrative law judge, board member and at youth sporting events. His opponent has not volunteered to do any of these.

Shanda Harry claims “vast experience” but in a debate she admitted to only helping other attorneys in three cases, handling three small car accidents and three misdemeanor cases, the most serious of these was the case of a drunk driver. Don Anderson had experience in over 60 jury trials and 1,800 other court trials. These include several murder trials and other serious felonies.

Shanda Harry claims she has “vast experience in all areas of law,” but has never done family law, probate or real estate law cases. Don Anderson has 20 years experience in these and all other areas of law.

When talking with Shanda Harry's supporters they often state their reason for voting for her as she is a woman, not her qualifications. I have not talked with one person who gave their reasons as being she is more qualified than Don Anderson. That concerns me greatly because thinking and decision making skills do not come from the portion of the anatomy that makes her a woman.

When looking at the debates it is clear Don Anderson knows the law and current issues and does not skirt around the questions.

Nancy Bradford lives in Lakeport, Calif.