Primary day thoughts on electing too many statewide office holders…

By: Richard S. Davis
12:00 am
August 7, 2012

In my column this morning, I write that, by electing nine statewide executives, our state weakens the office of governor and dilutes accountability.

Only a handful of states elect nine or more executives.

Diluting executive authority, however, frustrates accountability. Moreover, it allows special interests an inordinate influence on offices that matter mightily to them, but receive comparatively little media attention or public scrutiny. Gubernatorial candidates feel compelled to offer an “education plan,” but the elected superintendent of public instruction, who runs the state education bureaucracy, has no obligation to support the governor’s plan.

Similarly, with health care and environmental regulation critical to most Washingtonians, independently elected insurance and lands commissioners diminish the governor’s control. As voters consistently hold the governor responsible for performance in those areas, eliminating these three elected positions would improve accountability, consistency and efficiency.

We went into this theme in some detail in a Thrive Washington paper on the structure of state government. I encourage you to read it. Also, I want to thank Jason Mercier of the Washington Policy Center for his blog post today endorsing the reduction of statewide electeds (crossposted at Crosscut).
Categories: Categories , Current Affairs.