Orderly transition to elections director

Should the King County elections director be chosen by voters? The correct answer is no, but this becomes a far more complicated question now that Initiative 25 has qualified for a ballot.

I-25 next goes to the County Council, which should do us all a favor and put this measure on the ballot in such a way that it changes the rules not for next year's elections, but rather for elections in 2009 or 2010. King County switches to all-mail balloting in April 2008, in the middle of a huge election year, with a presidential contest, congressional races and legislative races on the ballot in the summer and fall.

The county does not need to make this change amid all of that. The county does not need to make this change, period.

Though other Washington counties have directly elected elections directors, that is not the best comparison.

With nearly 1 million registered voters, King County is more like other large urban counties, such as San Diego and Los Angeles, where elections directors are appointed. An elected director may just be well known and may not bring appropriate management experience.

Much fuss has been made about how the elections director is not accountable to the public and how if the elections director had been directly accountable to the public in the 2004 governor's race, election mistakes would not have been made.

This is by now trumped up hooey, and a judge in a Republican county said as much after a lengthy trial on behalf of Republican Dino Rossi.

The elections director currently is accountable to the county executive. Challenger David Irons tried to pin the foibles of the election on Ron Sims in the 2005 campaign for county executive. Voters didn't buy it.

Many observers suspect the public will want a say in electing a nonpartisan elections director if asked. If that is true, the council should craft an approach that delays this unnecessary change and allows it to occur in a more methodical and thoughtful manner.