Is there a Republican or Democratic way to register voters? Design a ballot? Count votes? There isn't supposed to be, but you wouldn't know it by peering into the quagmire that's bubbling and hissing in Florida these days. The mechanics of the American election process, we've all been told since grade school, are designed to be carried out impartially, free from partisan influence. But the events of the last few weeks tell a far different story, and it's becoming increasingly clear that many of the nuts-and-bolts in our system need tightening if any of us are to retain confidence in how well it runs.

Much of the debate over what went wrong in Florida has focused on the infamous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, which has prompted a call for a uniform, nationwide ballot style. That's certainly worthy of discussion, but the talk about reform should be much broader. Once the dust and the chads have settled from this election, we also need to take a close look at how much overt partisanship we're willing to accept from the people we choose to manage the election process.

In Florida and many other states, the top election officials and local election supervisors run for office under a party banner. What constructive purpose does this serve, since their job is to ensure that elections are free of partisan influence? Why elect them at all, given that the duties they perform are of an administrative nature, the sort ordinarily carried out by civil servants? If we feel we must elect them as a safeguard against corruption, then why not do it in a nonpartisan basis, lessening the likelihood they'll act out of party allegiances?

By making their jobs partisan, we've invited exactly the kind of controversy we witnessed last week involving Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a GOP stalwart who's been accused of allowing her ardent support of George W. Bush to cloud her judgment in enforcing state election laws.

Harris, as most of the nation now knows, spent the last few months serving as the Florida's chief election officer as well as co-chairwoman of Bush's Florida campaign. Most years, when elections are decided by decisive margins, her dual role probably wouldn't have drawn much notice or caused much consternation. But this obviously isn't an average election year.

Her support of Bush stirred up a storm in the final days of the presidential campaign, after her office produced a voter-education ad featuring well-known Bush supporter Norman Schwarzkopf. Critics said the ad, which was supposed to be nonpartisan, amounted to a taxpayer-funded commercial for Bush.

Last week, those dark clouds grew into a Category 5 storm following Harris' decision to reject hand recounts in several Florida counties. Democrats and others are asking why she didn't step aside during the recount, as Gov. Jeb Bush did, in favor of someone less involved in George W.'s campaign.

Why not, indeed? If the roles were reversed and a Democratic secretary of state had campaigned for a Democratic candidate for president and then issued a ruling in his favor, Republicans would likely be crying "conflict of interest" too.

No matter how conscientiously she exercised her discretion in interpreting the law, Harris was subject to intense criticism because she was elected under a party label and engaged in partisan campaigning after taking office.

Ironically, the secretary of state's job is headed for the scrap heap in Florida. In 1998, on the same day voters elected Harris to office, they voted to restructure the Cabinet and eliminate the secretary's position after her term expires at the end of 2002.

It's not clear yet how the state's top election official will be chosen after Harris leaves office, but there are several models that Florida and other states should study. One is in George W.'s home state.

In Texas, the governor appoints the secretary of state. That doesn't remove politics from the process, obviously, but it's a step closer to turning it into a civil service, or professional management position, not unlike a city clerk or a county administrator in some states. The appointment process could be designed to further dilute partisanship; a committee of Republicans, Democrats and others could be set up to review candidates and make nonpartisan recommendations to the governor.

At the local level in Texas, election supervisors are hired like other high-ranking employees, not elected under a party banner. At all levels, state law forbids election officials to actively campaign for a candidate as Harris did for George W. Bush in Florida.

Making the jobs of chief election officer and election supervisor nonpartisan wouldn't remove politics from the process entirely, of course. But barring overt partisanship would help rebuild voter confidence in the integrity of the election process. After all, there should not be a Republican or Democratic way to run an election, just an American way.

Daryl Lease is an editorial writer at the Herald-Tribune in Sarasota, Fla. His e-mail address is daryl.lease@herald-trib.com

Has Katherine Harris damaged voter confidence in the integrity of the election process? Should election officials be appointed instead of elected? What is the best way to ensure the accountability of election officials?