If the final signature count on a petition to limit property taxes qualifies it for the ballot, Maine voters should be leery of the measure not only for its effects on communities but for the state constitution’s effect on it. That the petition has made it this far is unfortunate.

Secretary Dan Gwadosky is expected to determine by late February whether the initiative, brought by the Maine Taxpayer Action Network, has the required 42,101 signatures. If it does, is sent to voters and approved next November, real and personal property taxes would be limited to 1 percent of assessed value based on the year 1996-1997, except for property sold, transferred or constructed after that time.

Put aside the fact that such a drastic cut in taxes could close schools, leave roads unpaved, slash municipal services and force towns and cities to try to ratchet up fees for just about everything. The Maine constitution’s Article IX has this to say about taxation: “All taxes upon real and personal estate, assessed by authority of this State, shall be apportioned and assessed equally according to the just value thereof.”

It’s the “equally” part that should concern petition signers. If a homeowner, for instance, chooses not to sell and pays on a rate based on a ’97 assessment (plus an allowed 2 percent increase on the base value annually) and someone else, living in an identical home, sells for an amount above

the assessed value (or below, especially a problem in some parts of the state), the old homeowner and the new one would pay different and unequal taxes for properties not long before recognized as identical in value. That’s not allowed, although there are certain exemptions to this, as, for instance, a

tax break for veterans, but the break must fall equally on all members exempted. And certain classes of property can receive special treatment, but their tax must be reasonably proportionate to the benefit conferred. It is difficult to see how buyers or sellers of homes fall into these categories.

After losing court fights several years ago when it questioned the constitutionality of a citizen initiative on term limits for federal officials, the Secretary of State’s Office now stays away from passing along legal interpretations from the Attorney General’s Office. That’s for the best – the courts should decide what is or is not constitutional and initiatives should not be stopped based only an opinion from the AG’s office.

But voters can look at the question for themselves. And if they aren’t persuaded

of the harm it would do the municipal services, they can look at the constitution and decide whether it withstands scrutiny. Sure doesn’t look like it.