Maine voters are to be congratulated for showing up in stronger numbers than expected Tuesday. The 45-percent turnout is still pathetic, but at least it is better than the 30 percent generally expected at off-year elections. Those who did vote must be feeling financially flush, because what most characterized their decisions in the voting booth was a willingness to be generous, sometimes to a fault.

Not only did all the bond questions pass, they did so by large margins. The transportation, technical college and environmental bonds were sure things, but broad support also held for the land purchases and public television. These results could be attributed to a strong economy, effective campaigning or an understanding among voters of the need for the programs the bonds will fund. More difficult to understand, however, was voters’ generosity with a couple of constitutional changes, which were passed virtually without debate.

Question 8 was simple enough. It designated specific voting times for people’s vetoes and was approved by a wide margin. Question 9, however, was more complicated, presenting towns with the opportunity to reduce the property tax for some residents and, presumably, shift it to everyone else. It passed by a smaller, though still comfortable amount. There was no organized opposition to either measure, but what’s troubling is that there also was seemingly no organized support for them.

A vote favoring measures that went through no particular campaign shows a disquieting level of trust among voters for the Legislature and its role in sending out these questions. Constitutional amendments require voter support; the Legislature sends them on, figuring the pros and cons of a proposal will get aired in the weeks leading up to an election. Voters, seeing that the Legislature has approved them, assume they’re probably OK. The result can be a content-free decision made through mutual ignorance. Is this any way to rewrite a constitution?

Lawmakers have a responsibility here. If they decide a measure is important enough to send on to voters, they might also decide to send out information on these questions. A nonpartisan fact sheet describing the intended effect of a constitutional change should be the least the Legislature supplies to potential voters.

Otherwise, voters run into questions like No. 9, intended to help towns preserve pretty places, but badly worded to include “scenic vistas,” which generally is defined as a view seen through a row of houses or trees — that is, the view from countless city streets. Do town officials really want to decide which of their streets are picturesque and which are not. And do they further want to tell the residents unlucky enough to live on the unpicturesque steets that their taxes are going up to cover the tax breaks for the better-looking parts of town?

Changing the constitution, whether for major or, in this case, relatively minor, reasons should not be taken lightly, and even generous voters should be given a chance to fully understand the question.