Great idea. Rotten timing.

That sums up the suggestion made by a King County candidate for the Superior Court bench. David Larson wants the Washington state Supreme Court to order a last-minute change to this fall’s ballots so far as they apply to races, such as his own, in which two candidates are running for a single judgeship.

If Larson gets his way, an already confusing election will get even more muddled, certain candidates will be mistreated and counties will be faced with wasteful changes for which they’ll have had insufficient time to prepare.

Under current law, candidates for Superior Court and District Court have to appear on the ballot only if they have opposition. If only two candidates file for a seat, that position is decided in the primary election. If three or more file, the top two vote-getters in the primary face off in the general election in November.

Because of that, many judicial candidates in this year’s elections have timed their campaign activities and spending around a Sept. 14 decision date.

But Larson is asking the Supreme Court to take the two-candidate races off the primary ballot and move them to the general election. The petition goes to the justices even as county elections officials are preparing to send mail-in ballots to the growing number of voters who request them. Those ballots have to go out next week, and there isn’t time to reprint them and still comply with the timetable prescribed by law.

Larson’s rationale is self-serving but valid. Under Washington’s new primary election system, voters must choose either a Democratic, Libertarian or Republican ballot if they want to vote in partisan races.

All those limited-party ballots will include the non-partisan contests, and there will be a ballot that lists only the non-partisan offices for those who don’t want to identify themselves with a single party.

But the system is new and controversial, and elections officials fear that many voters will sit the 2004 primary election out., whether through confusion or resentment. Larson has said he’s concerned about the diminished voter turnout, a problem that would be corrected by shifting the election to the Nov. 2 general election.

Handling judicial races as Larson suggests is a sound idea under any circumstances but even more so now that the primary election has been rendered such a partisan vehicle. Non-partisan races, such as judicial positions, deserve to be resolved in the general election when a fuller complement of the electorate participates.

But it’s not the kind of change that should be made by courts a matter of days before some voters will mark their ballots. It should be presented to the Legislature and dealt with in a more deliberative and public manner.

Even if the Supreme Court were to allow elections officials to use the ballots they’ve already ordered and ignore the primary election count for judges, that would further confuse voters and add to public cynicism.

It also would leave a lot of candidates under pressure to scramble for more campaign funds to see them through the unanticipated final seven weeks of campaigning – a great advantage to well-heeled candidates.

The current system has its problems, but the state can live with them through one more cycle rather than invite the problems associated with a hasty patch job.