Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates in federal, state and local races address leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to residents across Johnson County.

Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one question.

Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:

Johnson County’s election commissioner, who is appointed by the secretary of state, cut eight early voting sites before the August primary, and 21 local elected officials urged the office to restore them for November. Some readers called it voter suppression, expressing concern it could lower turnout. Do you support this decision? What standard should decide how many early voting sites a county offers?

Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on the issue:

Jennifer Day (Democratic)

I would not support reducing early voting access without clear, public data showing voters will still have comparable access. The standard should consider population, turnout, geographic distance, wait times, accessibility, and transportation needs. Election administration should make voting easier, not harder, while maintaining secure and transparent elections.

Scott Morgan (United Kansas)

I only know what I have read in press coverage, so I would be reluctant to judge the motives behind the decision. But at best, it was handled poorly. A significant change in voting access should have been made through a much more transparent process, particularly when financial resources did not appear to be the driving issue.

The standard should be straightforward: provide reasonable and convenient access based on population, geography, past usage, transportation, expected turnout and cost. I would also look at how far voters must travel, likely wait times, and whether closing or moving sites places an unreasonable burden on particular communities. Those factors should be measured and publicly explained before major changes are made.

Transparency is especially important because public confidence in elections is fragile. Even a defensible decision can undermine that confidence if voters do not understand why it was made. Election officials should be able to explain clearly why sites are added, moved or eliminated and demonstrate that the goal is convenient and equitable access for eligible voters.

The question should not simply be, “Can we operate with fewer sites?” It should be, “Are we making it reasonably easy for eligible voters to participate?”

Pat Proctor (Republican)

The strength of the election system in Kansas is that it is run at the local level, by individual counties. Taxpayers in each county are on the hook to pay for elections with their property taxes. The decision of how those elections are administered, including the number and location of polling places, should be made at that level. I support local control and home rule.

Coming up:

Tomorrow, we will publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:

The U.S. Justice Department has asked states for sensitive voter information, including driver’s license and Social Security numbers, and has said Kansas already handed it over. The state says it shared only the public voter list. What voter data would you give the federal government, and what, if anything, would you refuse to share?