As noted in today’s Kitsap Sun editorial, voter turnout throughout Kitsap County in Tuesday’s primary was a “deplorable” 22 percent. Kitsap County elections manager Dolores Gilmore said the turnout was comparable to off-year elections in the early 1990s, before all-mail balloting.

Voter turnout in South Kitsap was even lower, but was it apathy or something else? With 39,199 registered voters eligible to vote in the South Kitsap School District race for the district 3 position, only 5,385 ballots were counted as of the close of business at the auditor’s office on election day. That’s up to 6,023 today, still a scanty 15 percent.

Is it possible South Kitsap voters were boycotting what amounted to a straw poll? Current unofficial results show incumbent Naomi Polen, with 31.73 percent of the vote, trailing challenger Chris Lemke, a former board member, with 45.03 percent. A second challenger, Gail F. Porter, is ineligible to serve because she moved out of the director district after filing. According to the Kitsap County auditor’s office, the deadline to withdraw had passed by the time Porter made the move known. Porter’s name, therefore, appeared on the ballot, and she received 19.06 percent of the vote. Now, there’s nearly 20 percent of the 39,199 who are either in denial or not in tune with local media. As the editorial notes, we ran a story on the issue.

The hey of it is, the primary, results of which carry no weight, will cost South Kitsap School District an estimated $70,000. Before the election, I checked with Dolores Gilmore to see if the district would save any money if people did in fact boycott the primary. Dolores said no; most of the cost associated with the primary is incurred in preparation and distribution of ballots.

Based on turnout numbers in the South Kitsap race, however, one might guess some people made that assumption and shredded their ballots. Either that or SKSD voters are in a complacent slump.

There’s been considerable discussion on the blog entry post posted the day of the primary about Porter’s ineligibility and its implications for South Kitsap School District. I’ll respond to a few points made.

Bob Meadows pointed out that there are essentially two deadlines for withdrawal from a race. The candidate can withdraw up to the Thursday following filing week without having to give any reason. Secondly, the candidate can withdraw beyond that date at the election official’s (auditor’s office) discretion up to the day the ballots are ordered. I checked with Dolores Gilmore. The ballots were ordered June 15. According to Gilmore, she did not learn of Porter’s ineligibility to serve until Aug. June 18, when Porter came in to change her voter registration address.

School Board member Kathryn Simpson (in comments on the previous blog post and elsewhere) has given a different accounting of who knew what, when. I invited Dolores to respond to Kathryn’s statements, and Dolores declined, saying it was the formal position of the auditor’s office not to engage in discussion on the blog regarding this issue. In short, she had no comment. South Kitsap School District is pursuing legal advice on whether there is any way to mitigate the amount is has to pay for the primary. Stay tuned.

Finally, Bob Meadows notes that Porter would be eligible to serve if, hypothetically, she were to move back into district 3. Bob suggested that the nearly 20 percent of voters who favored Porter may have been encouraging her to do so. Porter would be eligible to serve under those hypothetical circumstances if she were still in the race. But that’s a moot point now, because she still got the fewest votes in the primary.

South Kitsap’s situation is a cautionary tale for both school districts – who are liable to incur the cost of elections even in the rare instances like this when they turn into straw polls – and candidates – who set in motion the wheels of elections law when they file for office.

Let it be said here that school board candidates probably aren’t in it for the money. SKSD board policy based on state law allows board members a stipend of $50 per meeting, but, according to district spokeswoman Aimee Warthen, not all claim compensation. They are paid for travel expenses to conferences (not in glamorous locales – unless you consider Spokane glamorous). The position requires hours of reading dry materials laden with edu-speak and sitting through meetings that are typically well attended (or attended at all) only when constituents are angry about something.

Given the above, the district ostensibly should be grateful for anyone willing to run. Regardless, potential candidates should be fully informed of the responsibility of the position and the financial implications to the district.

For the record, I became aware on July 1 that Porter had moved out of district 3 and did not act on it until late in July (my story ran July 28). Technically, acting on the information sooner would not have made any difference because the deadline had already passed. But it’s been a cautionary tale for me. And believe me, if a similar situation arises in the future, I won’t put it on the back burner.