BURNOUT IN KANSAS CITY

The few Jackson Countians who took the time to vote Tuesday extended
the anti-drug tax another seven years. Good for them. The quarter-cent
tax has helped reduce the scourge of illegal drugs since 1990 and
should continue to do so.

But the many no-shows sent another clear message: They are sick and
tired of going to the polls so often.

Tuesday's results provided more evidence that it is time to reduce the
number of elections in Kansas and Missouri.

Only 8 percent of registered voters took part in the anti-drug tax
election, continuing a downward trend in 2003.

Just 18.8 percent of Kansas City's voters went to the polls in the
March municipal elections, down from 44 percent 12 years ago. In
Johnson County, 11.5 percent of voters participated in school board
and city elections in April. The same month, 18.9 percent of voters
selected members of the Unified Board of Commissioners of Wyandotte
County and Kansas City, Kan.

For too many years, voters have faced a daunting array of election
dates in February, March, April, June, August and November.

Reducing the number of elections could save money and produce outcomes
that better represent majority opinion.

For Tuesday's single-issue election, Jackson County taxpayers spent
$560,000 - more than $16 for every vote cast. The county could have
reduced these costs by waiting until November, then splitting the
expense of that election with other governments and school boards that
will place items on the ballot.

Cutting the number of elections also could affect how campaigns are
run. Consider the anti-drug tax.

Supporters wanted to put the election on a low-turnout ballot in
August, allowing them to concentrate their energies on getting "yes"
votes to the polls.

One long-discussed idea would eliminate August dates in odd-numbered
years, when primaries aren't necessary because of the absence of state
and federal races.

If no August date had been available to them in 2003, anti-drug tax
supporters might have had to raise more money to get their message
across to potential voters in November. Other issues would have
competed for attention, including two transit taxes expected to be on
local ballots at that time.

Fewer elections would give voters more opportunities to evaluate and
compare different proposals, side by side.

It's selling voters short to assume that longer ballots will confuse
them. Area residents have shown they can be very discerning when faced
with multiple-issue ballots.

Holding fewer elections would make the ones that are held more
important. People would have more reasons to vote. That could boost
turnout and encourage more debate over how to craft a better future
for the region.