There are good reasons there were no celebrations at the Maine Municipal Association offices this week after voters – or at least a small portion of voters – approved the group’s referendum question on school funding. Passage of Question 1, which requires the state to provide 55 percent of education funds, and all special education funds, was largely a symbolic and temporary victory.

That’s because lawmakers, and the rest of the state, must now focus their attention on another referendum question, one that could have devastating consequences if it passes. Gov. Baldacci and legislative Democrats are right to have a concerted approach to defeating the 1 percent tax cap proposal that will be on the ballot in November. However, it will take much more than this to convince voters to reject the proposal from the Maine Taxpayers Action Network led by Carol Palesky.

As the passage of Question 1 shows, many Maine people are anxious for tax relief. The challenge now for lawmakers, MMA and other interest groups is to ensure that they get it. Question 1 gets partway there, but its details won’t begin to be worked out by the Legislature until it convenes again in January.

In the meantime, telling voters the Palesky proposal is bad – which is true – is not enough. Instead, the tax relief package and the coalition backing it must be broadened. The group, clearly, must include MMA and the Maine Education Association, the other entity behind Question 1, but it also must encompass the Maine Chamber of Commerce, labor unions and social service groups because the issue is about much more than school funding and municipal services.

These groups are best able to craft a package that will address the wide range of issues – such as the provision of government services, labor contracts and business impacts – that must be part of any discussion of tax relief. The MMA plan, which was supported by 55 percent of the 19 percent of people who voted Tuesday, gets to tax relief through education funding, but does not address these other areas.

On the political front, some are calling for a special session to craft a package to mute support for the Palesky plan. This is unreasonable for several reasons. The Legislature spent much of the spring dealing with tax relief, but in the end could not come up with a plan that was acceptable to both the House and Senate and Democrats and Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around for this failure, but now the stakes are too high for partisan bickering. The parties have so far been unable to agree on what a tax relief package should contain, which is not likely to magically change this summer.

If Republicans are not willing to drop their demands for a constitutional spending cap, which gives a one-third minority ultimate power over the state budget, there is no point in lawmakers meeting. If Senate Demo-crats continue to call for a large tax increase, there is no sense in calling legislators to Augusta.

Instead, lawmakers should work, largely behind the scenes, with the business chamber, labor unions and social services groups to outline a targeted tax relief plan. Like the Palesky package, it must be simple and targeted. It should also be constitutional, which the rollback to the 1997 assessment portion of the Palesky plan is not.

It’s a tall order, but with Nov. 2 a little more than four months away, it is one that must be completed.