(Note to readers: I posted an earlier version of this commentary on my blog last week.)

Democrats still haven't decided how Rochester will get its next mayor if Bob Duffy goes to Albany in January. (And it is up to the Democrats; under state election law, the Democratic-controlled City Council determines what the process will be.)

Unfortunately, a bitter intra-party fight could be brewing.

Some Democratic activists want City Council to appoint an interim mayor, who would serve until the end of 2011. We would elect a new mayor in November 2011, and that person would take office in 2012, for the two remaining years of Bob Duffy's term.

Other Democrats, including Party Chair Joe Morelle, want a special election. That would happen within three months after Duffy leaves office, and the winner would serve for the entire remainder of Duffy's term: nearly three years:.

Here's what's causing the controversy:

At least four Democrats, probably more, want to take Duffy's place. Ordinarily, they would fight it out in a primary. But under state law, if there's a special election, there can't be a primary. Democratic Party leaders - the county committee or its executive committee - will select the person who will run against the candidates of other parties.

And some members of the Democratic Committee are howling. Cutting out a primary, they say, is undemocratic. In this heavily Democratic city, where virtually nobody but a Democrat has any chance to be elected mayor, the public would effectively be shut out of the process.

That's absolutely true.

The critics also note that in disenfranchising voters, the special-election process particularly hurts the city's large number of African-American and Latino voters. There are African Americans and Latinos on the Democratic Committee that would select a special-election candidate, but party rules give them less power because voter turnout in their districts has been lower than in predominantly white city districts.

Both of those are incredibly serious concerns. And I'm not ecstatic about preferring a special election. Morelle doesn't seem to be, either. None of the options are "100 percent perfect," he says. "Not having the mayor serve the full term is not perfect or optimal. And not having a primary does have some challenges."

But, he says, you have to weigh that against the letting the city go without consistent leadership for a long time. In the eyes of many Rochesterians, Bob Duffy is already a lame-duck mayor. If City Council decides to appoint an interim mayor, that person will serve for less than a year: not a term that generates confidence or creates stability in government.

We could have three mayors in three years, then: Duffy, his appointed successor, and the winner of the November 2011 general election. With a special election, we'd have only two: Duffy, and the winner of the 2011 special election.

Worse, with a primary, the campaigning would begin almost immediately. Two Council members - Elaine Spaull and Dana Miller - want to be mayor. And a third Council member, Carla Palumbo, is said to be solidly behind former Democratic Party chair Molly Clifford. That seems to be causing tension on Council already.

The party's last mayoral primary, between Bob Duffy, Wade Norwood, and Tim Mains in 2005, was "relatively civil, because they're civil people," Morelle says. "But it still sucked the oxygen out of the room."

Morelle emphasizes that this is a unique situation: Duffy is only the third mayor we've had since Rochester moved to an elected-mayor form of government. Neither of his predecessors resigned. In these circumstances, a special election - with no primary - is one of the options under state law. And that's how Democrats decided to choose their candidate to fill the 29th District's Congressional seat when Eric Massa resigned last year in disgrace. I didn't hear charges of voters being disenfranchised then.

"I'm interested in the health and the future of the Democratic Party," Morelle said when we talked recently, "but I am more interested in the future and health of the City of Rochester."

"Sometimes," he said, "there's a time to put the public's interest ahead of political interests." And the public interest, he said, lies in stability and continuity.

I think Morelle's right. With all due respect to Bob Duffy, in much of the community's mind, he's already a lame-duck mayor. And Morelle noted that an interim appointment - no matter who it is - will be viewed as just that: an interim, a lame duck who'll be gone at the end of the year. The city's governmental future will be unsettled for well over a year. That won't inspire confidence among developers or the public.

"If there's any degree of instability," Morelle said, "private capital doesn't like that."

Nor, said Morelle, would a chaotic Democratic primary in 2011 inspire confidence.

My own support of a special election is linked to the person I want to be the Democrats' candidate. As I've said before, I want the Democrats to convince Tom Richards, the city's corporation counsel, to serve as mayor through 2013.

This is a very difficult time for the City of Rochester, and the last thing we need is a period of instability. Richards has been closely involved with crucial projects like the redevelopment of Midtown Plaza. If he and the rest of the top Duffy team leave as Duffy leaves - or soon after - we risk losing the tenuous momentum that has been building, particularly downtown.

And by the way, I think the choice of Richards answers - in part - the concerns about a special election disenfranchising voters. Rochesterians re-elected Bob Duffy last year. I assume that's because they liked what his administration had done over the past three-plus years. So wouldn't it be carrying out the will of last fall's voters to continue, as much as possible, that administration?

(Incidentally, while Richards isn't registered in any political party, state election law says he doesn't have to be a Democrat to run in a special election. He would have to be a Democrat to be appointed interim mayor, but the only requirement for a special election is that the party chair authorizes him to run on the Democratic Party line.)

Richards hasn't expressed interest in running. He certainly doesn't need the grief. That's not what he signed on for when he joined the Duffy administration in 2006. But he has taken on more responsibility than many previous corporation counsels have. And he's highly respected.

Would he get out to neighborhood groups and do the public schmoozing that Bob Duffy has done? Probably not. And while former Mayor Bill Johnson didn't do schmoozing as much as Duffy has, he was out in the community a lot.

But Johnson's predecessor - the highly respected Tom Ryan - seemed to have an innate aversion to that kind of public work. And he was a terrific mayor.

Morelle has been meeting individually with Democratic committee leaders and City Council members, hoping to develop a consensus. He has his work cut out for him. Comments from Democrats on our website have been numerous - and passionate. And while some readers are arguing for a primary because they're supporting a particular hopeful, others are simply appalled at what they see as an assault on people's voting rights.

Here's a sampling:

"Private capital versus democracy: at least Morelle is saying exactly what he stands for."

"The difference between a ‘special' election mayor and a general election mayor is a matter of months. One gets elected in March - the other in September. We should not let the rhetoric of a few overcome the need for the people to decide who will lead them. Please reconsider your stance and take into account the disenfranchisement of so many minority voters."

"Setting aside the right of citizens to run for office and the right of voters to have a meaningful range of choices for mayor in the name of ‘continuity and stability' is just ridiculous. If continuity is so important, we should be asking Bob Duffy to stay or we should be passing legislation that requires lifetime terms for mayor. Let us vote!"

"If Tom Richards is so great, why doesn't he just run in an election and let the PEOPLE decide?"

Right now, it seems a fair bet that this issue won't be settled for a while. Morelle says he hopes to have a meeting of city Democratic leaders "probably in another month or so." And ultimately, the members of City Council - including the ones who want to be mayor - will decide whether we'll have a special election or they'll appoint an interim mayor and we'll then have a primary and a general election.

We're in for some high drama, obviously.

And how I wish it weren't so. As much as I love politics, and as much as I enjoy the drama, I wish we didn't have to go through this right now.

Thanks a lot, Mayor Duffy. I sure hope the job of lieutenant governor is what you think it will be, rather than what many of us fear.