Shall the Constitution of Maine be amended to provide that funds appropriated to the Maine State Retirement System become assets of the system and may not be diverted to another purpose?

The only constitutional amendment on the ballot Nov. 5 asks voters whether the state retirement fund needs special protection from politicians desperately seeking revenue. After last year’s budget bickering, the quick answer would be, yes, let’s make sure those lousy politicians keep their hands off the retirement money. But Question 9 sets a poor and unnecessary precedent.

The Maine Constitution presents a state philosophy as well a set of protections; it isn’t a political cudgel and shouldn’t be used by the Legislature as a management tool.

The proposed provision would come into play when state government is short of cash after money already has been allocated to the retirement system and is trying to balance its books by fiddling with various state accounts. The amendment would protect the money allocated to the retirement account from fiddling.

Certainly, the funds in the retirement system should be protected from the whims of government, but the state constitution shouldn’t be revised every time a politician missteps. Some simple laws could spell out clearly what the retirement fund could and could not be used for.

Many Maine residents lost faith in their elected state leaders after this year’s budget battle in Augusta, and with good reason want to see retirement funds protected. But the Maine Constitution was not designed as a document to protect against one-time budget maneuvers in an extraordinarily bad year, and should not be encumbered with the laws that simply direct procedure for managing state funds.