editorials

Add the name Mark Ritchie to the long list of state and national public officials who have learned the hard way that trying to hide an error in judgment only magnifies the mistake.

If Minnesota's first-term DFL secretary of state had owned up when first asked about giving his campaign the names and addresses of people who participated in a series of civic engagement meetings his office sponsored, the matter likely would have blown over weeks ago.

As Legislative Auditor James Nobles reported Tuesday, Ritchie did not violate any laws; the data is public and available to anyone.

Moreover, Nobles said, there was nothing illegal in the collection of the data, or the meeting at which it was obtained. Anyone who supplies his or her name to a government entity and thinks it is private, or that its use will be restricted to only one purpose, is naïve.

The only credible criticism Ritchie's original critics lobbed at him was that he violated the spirit of his 2006 campaign to unseat GOP Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer. He accused Kiffmeyer of partisanship, and said he would run a neutral operation. Sharing data about 600 meeting participants with his campaign blurred what for him ought to have been a strict line between official duties and politicking -- not because the law requires it, but because his own campaign promises did.

When Ritchie failed to tell the whole story for several weeks, not only to this newspaper but also to the Office of the Legislative Auditor, he enlarged his error. Nobles was right to rap him for changing his story about how his campaign obtained the data between a first exchange on Nov. 9 and a subsequent e-mail on Nov. 20.

Nobles' report said Ritchie's initial dissembling to the office charged with evaluating state agency conduct was "a serious breach of responsibility" that "did not fulfill his legal obligation." That last line hints at the possibility of more official proceedings -- and where there's an opening to go after Ritchie, Republican officials have shown themselves excessively eager to seize it. Their overblown rhetoric, going so far as to call for Ritchie's resignation, calls their sense of proportion into question. Their zeal makes plausible DFL claims that Ritchie's real offense in GOP eyes is something else -- perhaps his vigorous defense of the opportunity to register to vote on Election Day.

Minnesotans would be better served if, instead of pursuing legal action, Ritchie's critics would join him in a review of the statutes, to make them better match Minnesotans' expectation that elected officials separate campaigning from the performance of their official duties. Those who say Ritchie's conduct ought to be illegal can prove their sincerity by putting that notion into bill form for the 2008 Legislature and getting it into the statute books, so that it applies to GOP and DFL officials alike.