The governor takes the position that he couldn't set the rerun for April because state law requires referendums on public transportation to be held during general elections. Further, he contends that such elections should be held in general elections when voter participation is at its greatest. We have consistently opposed officials purposely setting special elections for referendums and believe the state law requiring them to be in November should apply to all ballot questions, not just public transportation.

But we also agree with a state law that makes an exception. That law provides a remedy when a vote held during a general election is declared null and void, as was the case with the successful 2002 half-percent sales tax referendum. That statute gives the governor the power to call for a rerun, and that's the law the county asked the governor to follow.

In fact, the governor has followed that statute in three other instances, and he didn't wait to set those elections for November. Granted, those instances involved vacancies in office that needed to be filled. But this referendum includes funding for this area's public transportation system that is on the verge of shutdown. Voters who successfully passed that referendum in 2002 have the right to cast their vote again before it's too late.

To his credit, the governor did try to find a way to keep the bus system operational by locating some $800,000 in state grants and loans, an estimated 40 percent of what it would take to keep the system operational until November. The problem, however, is that local government doesn't have access to the other 60 percent because state law doesn't allow the use of property taxes to fund public transportation absent a referendum. Nor have any hoped-for federal funds become available. Accommodation taxes can be used for the tourist shuttle, but that's no comfort to those local residents who need the regular bus service.

Unfortunately, the election confusion is now far worse than if the governor simply had refused to set the election. Had that been the case, the county could have set the November election itself and even considered adjusting the referendum language, as one of our letter writers suggests today. But that no longer may be possible.

The governor's order sets the November election under the statute that provides for the rerun of the voided election. County attorneys have taken the position that the statute in question gives them very little leeway in changing the referendum wording from that on the ballot in 2002.

Had the governor not set a date, local officials could have more easily gone to the state Supreme Court and gotten an order to require him to do so. But, in effect, the governor may have checkmated that effort. Now that he has set a date -- despite the fact that county officials could have independently put the question on the ballot on that date -- an order requiring him to set an earlier date unquestionably will be more difficult to obtain.

But it may be worth a try. If a voided election could only be held at the time of the next general election, there would have been no need for a law that requires the governor to set a date for a rerun. The rerun law's intent is clear. The sooner, the better.