Endorsing in primaries is critical.

As I finish this, it is 43 hours from Colorado lift-off Colorado as in not Illinois. Lift as in ski. Off as in off work, off the computer, off the phone, off the candidates, off the elections. When the last endorsement fills our editorial page's last available inch, skiing is my reward.

Anticipation of the peaks helps me get through the valleys, like the gubernatorial wannabe who says trying women for murder if they have abortions makes logical sense and who calls a half hour later and says, on second thought, the poor dears must be out of their minds and probably should be prosecuted only if they become serial aborters.

I think readers need to know this, and I think it's my job to tell them in the context of election commentary and I don't see that how the fact that the contest we're wrapping up in Illinois is a "mere" primary excuses me.

Mere primaries produce fine candidates and awful ones. In a Supreme Court race, one Republican candidate got a near-perfect 96 on the attorneys' poll, and her opponent got an abysmal 37. If we can help steer voters toward the superior candidate, then we will have done well in March. Why bet it all on November?

Mere primaries can help advance the newspaper's agenda, particularly in the community. To advocate for causes, but stop short of endorsing those who might carry them out, is the workplace equivalent of perching on the crest of the ski hill only to ride the chair back down. (OK, I'm obsessed.) I just don't see why this changes because the vote is a primary.

Mere primaries send thoughtful voters in search of information to make informed choices every bit as much as general elections do. I might even argue that the need for help in primaries is greater than in general elections, when the pull of party affiliation is potent.

In parts of our circulation area, mere primaries constitute the election. In largely rural Woodford County, eight candidates are running for five seats on the county board, three for sheriff, and three for state's attorney. All are Republicans. Since no Democrats are on the ballot, March 19 is it. In Woodford County, March 19 would be it even if there were Democrats on the ballot.

Based on a query I sent out on the NCEW listserv and other conversations I've had, I know that many, maybe most, of my colleagues disagree. The most consistent argument is that these are party primaries, held so that members might choose their party's nominees. Since the newspaper is not a party member, it should not be involved.

I don't know about elsewhere, but that argument does not reflect the reality of what happens throughout many of central Illinois homes.

Here's what does: Voter looks at who's running. Voter sees that the best races, the ones he cares most about, are on the Democratic side. Voter takes a Democratic ballot this time, maybe a Republican next. Illinois' "party" primaries are as solid as a snowpack on a south-facing, 30-degree slope in late March. (Sorry.)

But even if this were different, I would reject the argument that the editorial voice of a newspaper has no place in a primary for all the reasons I have mentioned. And if you carried that argument to its logical conclusion, party members would be on a long list of people (business leaders, city commissioners, doctors, lawyers) whom editorial writers should cease advising because we aren't one. I think our strength comes from butting in, not butting out.

So we'll keep sending out questionnaires, and coming in on Saturday mornings, and hashing over the candidates, and griping, and telling ourselves we're doing the right thing. If I didn't think we were, I would go skiing first.

RELATED ARTICLE: Focusing on purpose worked -- almost

The redrawing of voting districts that takes place every 10 years encourages more candidates to seek office and makes the endorsement process a higher hurdle. Adding to the burden in Illinois is the fact that every term on every county board expires.

In the three counties that make up the Journal Star's primary circulation area, that's 54 potential contests in each party just for this one office. That's impossible for a three-person staff, and that's why I sought advice on the listserv.

The best came from Ed Williams, editorial page editor of the Charlotte Observer, who said:

"First, figure out why you're gathering information, and then gather it in the way that makes sense for that purpose. If you're gathering information to aid the editorial department in reaching an endorsement decision, there is no point in interviewing every candidate.... Schedule an interview only if it is helpful to you."

Inform candidates by letter or column that you will be seeking information about them by a variety of means (questionnaires, debates, etc.), he advised. Urge them to send any information they want you to have.

"Any interviews should be designed to resolve any questions you may have," he said. "If you take that route, you probably won't interview some candidates you know you will endorse as well as some you know you won't."

Ed's advice -- essentially, to focus on the purpose and not the procedure -- became our guidepost.

Here's what we did:

On January 2, we sent out 97 letters to candidates for state and local offices. (In two counties, there ended up being no primary races, hallelujah!) The letters informed every candidate of the endorsement process and invited each to complete the enclosed bio form and questionnaire. We told 62 we would welcome an opportunity to talk to them and told the remainder we'd contact them later if we needed more.

We scheduled no interviews with the 10 candidates for lieutenant governor because of the nature of the office and because we were quite certain we would endorse the two good local people running. We passed up 10 or 15 "fringe" candidates, some of whom ended up withdrawing anyway. Fairness is an issue here, but I've never been really sure how fair it is to waste the time of people we never will endorse.

We set aside five weeks for interviews, used group sessions when it was feasible and made sense, and set up early evening and Saturday morning sessions, running candidates in and out in 20 or 25 minutes. I was surprised how much we could learn in such a short time when we took a disciplined approach.

Each of us had the right to opt out (and did) when we just couldn't take another one. We split the research on five referenda among the three of us to save time.

I believe the process worked fairly well; at least, it did not seem as oppressive as it has in the past. We talked to those candidates we needed to see and passed up those we did not. We did our best in light of time and other duties, and I went into the election believing our readers had been well-served.

Unfortunately, a few days after the vote we found ourselves the subject of intense criticism in a political column in our own newspaper for failing to interview candidates in one particular judicial race. A candidate we did not endorse accused us of being unfair, and I know that some readers agreed. Knowing that perception is important, I am less sure now what to do this fall than I was a few weeks ago.

NCEW member Barbarn Mantz Drake is editorial page editor of the Journal Star in Peoria, IL. E-mail her at [e-mail]