A defeat of the chief justice of Washington’s supreme court in tomorrow’s election would be another victory for well-financed special interests. Preventing such an outcome should top the state’s election reform to-do list.

Anyone who watches cable TV has likely seen the personal-attack ads in support of Redmond property-rights lawyer John Groen. Most of the $1.6 million spent on his campaign comes from the Building Industry Association of Washington, an essentially Republican organization whose purpose is to gut regulations, no matter the level of public support. Rather than attack the court’s decisions, the ads malign the personality of Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, a 12-year court veteran who has the endorsements of most of the state’s newspapers but far less money.

Groen gained financial advantage by taking large campaign donations after a law limiting those contributions was passed but before it went into effect. He is reportedly the only supreme court candidate this year who didn’t uphold the intent of that money-limit law. The building association has run “independent” efforts to support the campaign since.

Washington shouldn’t allow any single interest to buy an election, regardless of ideology. Money can’t be eliminated from politics but a public system to maintain balance might help. An organization pushing the idea is Washington Public Campaigns, which cites successful examples of such a system in other states. Publicly financing just supreme court races would reportedly cost $4 million.

But reform shouldn’t stop there. The state needs to set higher standards for elections in each of the 39 counties, guaranteeing equal implementation. It also needs to raise the hurdles for passage of citizen initiatives, which are often financed by special-interest groups that hire paid signature gatherers to put them on the ballot.

Amtrak trains in Pennsylvania will begin traveling at up to 110 miles an hour next month, the fastest American run outside the Washington, D.C.-Boston corridor.

The new service cuts travel times between Philadelphia and Harrisburg to 90 minutes from about two hours — considerably faster than driving. The $145 million project includes new rails, which allow a smoother ride, and cleaner electric trains. Amtrak plans to add trains to meet the bump in ridership that’s likely with the improved service.

In Cascadia, the governments of Washington, Oregon and British Columbia need to move faster to meet growing demand for an efficient way to move around the region. Train ridership between Vancouver, Seattle and Portland has soared along with improved service in recent years. But going by train is still slower and less convenient than driving.

Plans call for gradually improving infrastructure along the route in order to add frequency and speed the trips. By about 2013, eight trains a day would run between Seattle and Portland in three hours, and three trains would run between Seattle and Vancouver in 3:30. Currently there are no plans to add trains or cut travel-times between Seattle and Vancouver before the 2010 Olympics.

The unemployment rates in Washington and Oregon dipped a tenth of a percentage point in August, another sign of Cascadia’s robust economy.

In Washington the unemployment rate fell to 5.2 percent and in Oregon to 5.5 percent. Last week British Columbia reported that its rate fell to 4.7 percent — near a 30-year low.

The job market, which is stronger here than in the whole of either country, is likely one reason for tight real estate markets across the region. Yet the picture varied depending on location. In Washington, the Seattle area’s rate fell to 3.9 percent, down from 4.2 percent in July. But Ferry county’s rate was 8.8 percent.

The U.S. and Canada are set to sign an agreement today to end the long-running dispute over softwood lumber. A negotiated settlement beats wasting more money on lawyers’ fees, but it won’t be the end of the issue.

Under the deal, legal proceedings would be dropped and the U.S. would repay about 80 percent of the duties it has collected on Canadian lumber imported into the U.S. Instead, Canadian exporters would have a quota that is linked to their market share in the U.S.

A move to alleviate a key source of trade friction between the U.S. and Canada is big news. Unfortunately the agreement won’t solve the underlying problem because Canada has abundant low-cost government-owned trees and U.S. consumers demand inexpensive wood.

There is still significant opposition to the deal, which would be open for renegotiation within a couple of years. Canada has won a string of judgements under the NAFTA and WTO tribunals and many Canadians resent caving in to the U.S. It also still needs to be ratified by parliament, where it’s part of a larger political-power struggle.

British Columbia’s strong economy kept the unemployment rate at 4.7 percent in August, near a 30-year low, according to a report Friday. Along with robust employment in the U.S. Northwest, the data suggest that Cascadia’s economy remains stronger than in either country as a whole.

Vancouver’s unemployment rate was 3.9 percent and Victoria’s was 3 percent — Canada’s lowest. The national rate was 6.5 percent. Across B.C., construction and trades jobs increased in number while manufacturing and government shed jobs.

The Seattle area had an unemployment rate of 4.1 percent in July, compared to 4.8 percent nationwide. The latest Washington rates will be released this week.

Canada’s national government is pushing the provinces to accept the lumber trade deal it negotiated with the U.S., despite wide differences among the regions.

To uphold the deal, which would limit Canadian exports, British Columbia will impose an export tax when prices fall below a set level. Agreement on the deal is reportedly assured now that former opponents in Quebec dropped their objection as part of a wider bid for influence in the national government.

Even with passage of the deal, the dispute between lumber producers in both countries is likely to continue. Among the reasons: the slowdown in the U.S. housing market will reduce demand, making imposed taxes and caps especially onerous.