South Carolina voters should expect the Legislature to make real progress this year in giving voters a chance in next year's general election to make important structural changes in the executive branch.

It should be noted that if voters approve changes in the November 2004 general election, they wouldn't take effect until the terms of the offices in question expire in 2006.

Among the elected offices considered the more likely prospects for the constitutional change are the superintendent of education and the commissioner of agriculture. There also is a bill that proposes merging the functions of the state comptroller general with those of the treasurer. Another would simply eliminate the secretary of state's office, and turn over its responsibilities to various state agencies.

None of those offices can be altered without a statewide referendum. And that can't happen unless two-thirds of the Legislature agrees to put the questions to a vote. But now's the time for the lawmakers to decide which issues will be on next year's ballot. If they wait until closer to next year's general election, the atmosphere will be even more politically charged and the debate less reasoned.

The current superintendent of education, Inez Tenenbaum, is among those who support making that position a Cabinet post. That change also was recommended by Gov. Mark Sanford's task force on education. The governor should have the authority to set the direction of public education in the state, and he should have the option of selecting the best-qualified person to carry out his policies.

South Carolina is the only state in which the adjutant general is elected by popular vote, and critics say it politicizes what should be an appointive office. Periodically, National Guard members have complained about pressures to support incumbent candidates with their contributions during the election season. Nationally, the military has been buffered from electoral politics, and making the adjutant general appointive should do the same for the National Guard in South Carolina.

The former secretary of state concluded that his office could easily be eliminated and its responsibilities given to the Revenue Department and the state attorney general. His proposal came close to getting legislative approval, only to be shelved at the last minute by a prospective candidate for the position who was a member of the House. Eliminating the secretary of state would save taxpayers his salary and administrative costs, and make a statement about the Legislature's willingness to streamline government as warranted.

The argument for making the agriculture commissioner appointive is much the same as that of the superintendent of education. The governor should be able to address agriculture policy through his appointee.

The restructuring of state government has been on hold since the Cabinet system was initiated under the Campbell administration. It's past time for resumption of this reform.