View full sizeBruce StarrFor the record, we don't especially care whether Oregon voters elect a labor commissioner in May or November. But we do care that election dates and other key decisions are made in an open, timely and fair process.
By any measure,
belated "announcement" that the election for the statewide position of commissioner of the
will be held in November, not May as everyone formerly believed, fails that test.
The word "announcement" is in quotes because Brown didn't actually announce the startling change. One of the two candidates, Republican Bruce Starr, learned of the change only because one of his campaign staffers made a routine call Friday to the Elections Division. The incumbent seeking re-election, Democrat Brad Avakian, found out when a reporter called to ask him about the switch. In fact,
Is this any way to run an election for a key statewide position?
View full sizeBrad AvakianStarr was furious about the switch, which seems to give Avakian an advantage, pushing the election from May, when a Republican presidential primary should help GOP candidates, to November, when the Obama re-election campaign is likely to drive Democratic turnout in Oregon.
Starr responded Tuesday by suing Brown in Marion County Circuit Court, demanding the decision to push the election to November be reversed and that the election proceed in May. He accused Brown -- like Avakian, a Democrat -- of shifting the election to help the incumbent.
In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Brown reacted angrily, calling Starr's charge "outrageous." She cited the wording of a lengthy election-related bill passed by the 2009 Legislature that includes language making a one-time adjustment to the labor commissioner's term, cutting it from four years to two years, and putting it back on the same election cycle as other statewide elective offices, including governor.
Brown claimed the legislation "clearly states" that the labor commissioner would be elected in November and for a two-year term. The two-year term part is plainly stated, and the November election is mentioned, but there is some fuzz around the question of whether a two-person race, as this one is, could be in May or November.
Moreover, if all this is so "clear," why were both campaigns and everyone in Oregon laboring under the illusion that Starr and Avakian would face off in May? At the very least, Brown and her office owe the campaigns an apology and a better explanation for letting them run on and on, with no guidance from the Elections Division.
"How difficult would it have been to pick up the phone" as it became obvious that the candidates and the secretary of state were on different schedules? Starr asks. "How hard would it have been to provide that courtesy?"
It's a good question. It's reasonable to expect the Elections Division to competently administer such a core task as setting and clearly communicating an election date to the participants.
Starr's complaint is owed a speedy hearing in front of a Marion County judge. A timely hearing provides the best possibility of an outcome that's fair to both candidates -- and to voters.