Rick Dancer of Springfield, the former television newsman who is running state Sen. Kate Brown of Portland for secretary of state, has thrown a good idea into the public arena: Make the secretary of state's office nonpartisan. The trick is how to make the change so that it means something.

The idea has a certain natural appeal. The secretary of state is the chief elections officer of the state and also oversees the auditing of state accounts. There is no Democratic or Republican way -or should not be - of counting initiative signatures, registering voters or tallying votes. The same with auditing.

But the existing setup does not automatically mean a partisan running of the office, just as changing the law would not guarantee the opposite.

Phil Keisling held the office during the 1990s as a Democrat. He was scrupulously nonpartisan, especially in the reapportionment after the 1990 census. It is said that some Democrats never forgave him, because as a result they were out of power in the legislature for quite awhile. They

didn't regain seats and majority status until after the reapportionment by Bill Bradbury in 2001, which resulted in gerrymandered districts such as the mid-valley's House District 23.

So whether the office is run in a nonpartisan or partisan manner depends more on the person in charge than on how people get elected.

Still, reason suggests that nonpartisanship may be enhanced if we get rid of party-based elections.

As luck would have it, just such a proposal is on the ballot as Measure 65, as readers of these columns know. It would do away with separate, party-based primary elections and substitute one that is open to candidates regardless of party label.

Whether approving this measure would actually promote the cause of nonpartisanship, especially in the secretary of state's office but in others as well, no one can say in advance. But it's worth a shot. (hh)