It’s tempting to dismiss chatter about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server, while secretary of state, as political theater staged by opponents and pundits - the same crowd that can’t stop talking about Benghazi.

But this is serious. New revelations that several emails on her server were classified as “top secret” and a widening inquiry involving the FBI, as reported by McClatchy, are pushing the issue from a sideshow into the spotlight.

It might turn out that the flap is overblown, excusable errors were made, the “classified” label is overused and Clinton truly is the Democrats’ best candidate for president. Wisely, she finally agreed to give the server in question to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Still, the practice of official correspondence straddling public and private computers is problematic and risky. It disdains public-record laws and muddies transparency, as Sarah Palin demonstrated when she was governor of Alaska. Perhaps it should be banned.

In the meantime, the Obama administration must proceed quickly with inquiries into Clinton’s email handling, regardless of political alliances. This is no time to dawdle and obfuscate.

To be fair, the administration should give Clinton the same level of scrutiny that it has applied to other government employees suspected of mishandling sensitive material and putting it on personal devices outside the firewall.

The federal government has plenty of experience after aggressively cracking down on those who have stepped outside the line with sensitive information.

Under President Barack Obama, more than twice as many people have been prosecuted for leaking information than under all previous presidents combined.

Even so, the administration has a mixed record of dealing with higher-ups who are sloppy with classified material. One former CIA director, David Petraeus, was prosecuted for disclosing secrets while his predecessor, Leon Panetta, was not.

A fast and thorough assessment of Clinton’s email practices is needed to clear the air, build faith in the system and help voters know whom to trust.

— Seattle Times