No one needs a reminder that political races are under way (political races are always under way), but candidates did file for office this week in Washington’s 39 counties. That means campaign intensity will soon increase, and with the state’s earliest-ever primary only a couple of months away, voters need to be thinking about their choices.

One popular method involves what amounts to a scorecard. As candidates differentiate themselves on a limited number of specific issues, voters weigh those positions against their own. Taxation, land-use policies, street repair, police and fire protection – the candidate who matches up best gets the vote.

That approach is logical but insufficient.

At most, there might be a dozen significant issues on which candidates can stake out positions prior to the election. But over the course of a term in office, countless unforeseeable challenges will face a mayor, council member or school director. On many of these issues, there will be no record of campaign promises to guide decisions or shape public expectations.

So as the candidate evaluation process accelerates in coming weeks, voters should be exploring – and candidates should be explaining – just what kind of person will be in place to help resolve the situations that wait around the corner.

In the interview excerpted on this page, human rights activist Tony Stewart notes that some political leaders live in “the immediacy of now,” while others think about the consequences that will be felt well into the future because of the decisions they make today.

To Stewart, it’s a question of integrity, and the best way to anticipate a candidate’s future action is to learn his or her core values. And whether values trump politics or the other way around.

Some candidates will say, and even believe, whatever it takes to win votes in 2007. It’s called being responsive to public opinion, which sounds good. Others will also analyze their decisions in terms of the future they’ll create and the values they reflect.

It takes courage and character for candidates to advocate policies that require sacrifice. Even if it’s needed to assure a stable and just future, it doesn’t look as attractive on a scorecard as quick, uncomplicated answers. Delayed gratification is a tough sell in the political world.

We need people of intelligence and integrity in leadership roles when demanding decisions are required. We need people who will look beyond Election Day and consider the full effect of time.

If candidates will risk political fallout to give honest opinions, the rest of us owe them at least an open-minded hearing. We might learn something a scorecard alone won’t reveal.