Maine voters have long been frustrated by confusing, and sometimes deceptive, wording of ballot questions. A bill that a legislative committee will consider this week could help by seeking more public comment before a ballot initiative is finalized. Ensuring questions are straightforward and accurate will benefit everyone.

The bill, LD 176, sponsored by Sen. Ethan Strimling of Portland, would require a public comment period before an initiative question is finalized for signature gathering and presentation to the Legislature. This is a modest, but helpful change.

The point says Sen. Strimling, a Democrat, is to get questions right before the public – and opponents – complain that a question is confusing or misworded.

The Secretary of State’s Office already does a lot of behind-the-scenes work trying to refine questions. It pulls together an informal ballot clarity board, which includes language experts, to review questions. The Attorney General’s Office reviews proposed questions for legal and constitutional problems. The question, and recommended changes, then goes to the secretary of state, who can reject, revise or approve the question. The secretary often works with a questions’ supporters and opponents to seek ways to word questions that satisfy both constituencies.

That process, however, sometimes still results in ballot questions that stump voters. Something as simple as identifying a question would help. Last fall, many voters asked poll workers why the Taxpayers Bill of Rights wasn’t on their ballot when Question 1, which talked about limiting increases in government spending, was the question they were looking for. In that instance, including its common name in the ballot question would have eliminated some confusion.

The Maine Municipal Association, in testifying in support of LD 176, said that TABOR was a poorly worded question because it used positive terms such as “increases” and “growth” when in fact the initiative could have required cuts in town and school budgets.

“Based on the TABOR experience, municipal officials believe that by creating a notice and comment period, there is a far greater chance that citizens initiative questions will be accurately drafted,” MMA said in a recent Legislative Bulletin.

Adding this comment period, which would allow people with no connection to the issue to give their reaction to proposed questions, would slow down the petition process. But a delay that results in improvements is worthwhile. The comment period must come before signatures are gathered to put a question before lawmakers and the public. This means comments will be collected on some questions that will never be put to a vote but this is better than the confusion that would result from having one question presented for signatures and a revised version put on the ballot.

LD 176 is a small step toward more clarity in the voting booth.