Of all of the Kitsap county political races being played out this fall, perhaps the strangest is the competition between Jeanette Dalton, a defense attorney in Kingston, and Bruce Danielson, a Port Orchard attorney who specializes in civil litigation and also as a court-appointed arbitrator. They are seeking election on the Superior Court Position One bench.

Danielson has been running more as a “people’s candidate” than Dalton, who has sought and received endorsements from most of the county’s attorneys and judges. Danielson sees that as a positive. He emphasizes that he’s an independent candidate who won’t be bought and paid for by the county and state judicial systems.

The race has been contentious from the beginning, but especially after Dalton and Danielson finished first and second, respectively, in the primary. But the argument has been taken to a different level since Danielson started publishing ads in county papers that said he had “judicial experience” because he has served “as an acting Judge with the Superior Court as a arbitrator since 1989.”

At least one attorney, two retired judges and Dalton have problems with the statement that Danielson has judicial experience since he has never served as a judge in any court in the state. Basically, they believe Danielson has acted unethically by misrepresenting his qualifications. The two retired judges, James Maddock and Leonard Kruse, went so far as to say that the “deception and misstatement of his non-existent judicial experience, should, by itself, disqualify him from being considered by the voters as a qualified candidate.”

Danielson, who is currently registered as an arbitrator with King County Superior Court, says the judges and his opponent are splitting hairs. He points to a form on the governor’s web page that identifies “arbitrator” as judicial experience for a person being considered for a pro-tem appointment to Superior Court.

Arbitrators, by law, are involved only in civil cases that involve money judgments, and only those under $50,000. Arbitrator’s are not court officers and generally make their judgments in private settings, not in public courtrooms.

Critics of Danielson’s claim that the skills and experience held by a judge, as compared to those held by an arbitrator, are different and don’t equate. Therefore, it’s misleading for Danielson to claim that his arbitration skills are the equivalent to having judicial experience. Arbitrators, for example, don’t deal with divorces, property settlements, criminal trials or rules of evidence or sentencing.

When Judge Bruce Hillyer, the presiding judge of King County Superior Court, was asked if he would consider a King County court-appointed arbitrator to be “an acting Judge in Superior Court”? Hilyer said no, adding: “The court-appointed arbitrator serves a judicial function, but it is different than a Superior Court judge.”

Danielson disagreed. He said an arbitrator’s job is steeped with judicial duties and certainly has prepared him to become a Superior Court judge. So why shouldn’t he claim it as a job skill?

“As an arbitrator, I’m performing many of the same – actually, identical – roles that a judge does,” Danielson said this week. “There are some procedural differences, but basically they are very much the same. So, I have no problem saying I have judicial experience because I do. And it’s because I’ve worked as an arbitrator for many years.”

So will all of this make a difference in the race? Perhaps. The Washington State Bar has also been apprised of Danielson’s advertisement.