A House-passed bill to eliminate elections for two major departments falls far short of Gov. Mark Sanford's original restructuring proposal.

The bill passed Tuesday would let voters amend the constitution to permit the governor to appoint the education superintendent and the secretary of state. Both currently are elected directly.

The governor also wants to eliminate elections for three other offices for which elections seem superfluous - agriculture secretary, comptroller general and adjutant general. Too bad lawmakers aren't as dedicated to reform.

Of the five, the education superintendent is the most visible to most people - and likely to be the most contentious if it ever comes to a referendum.

A good case can be made for both direct election and gubernatorial appointment. Indeed, Inez Tenenbaum, the current education superintendent, has spoken eloquently on both sides of the issue. In the final analysis, she wants a referendum to let voters decide.

That may seem a curious position, but Tenenbaum knows the cost of running a statewide campaign is becoming prohibitive. The need to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and devote months to trekking across the state keeps good candidates from seeking the office. Would it not be better for the governor to appoint a qualified superintendent who is more a professional than a politician?

The other argument, of course, is founded in democracy: An election gives citizens the chance to vote on who the education superintendent should be. It also gives organizations and individuals with a special interest in public education an opportunity to question candidates and make endorsements rather than abiding by the decision of a governor.

What the House did Tuesday, if the bill survives, is not much more than a first step in making state government more responsive to 21st century realities. Unfortunately, there's no reason for optimism, despite the lopsided 90-30 vote in the House. A similar bill to eliminate election for the superintendent of education never made it past the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004. Will this be the year our senators catch up to the governor?