The fact that none of the recent citizen-initiative petitions gathered the required number of signatures in time for January deadline is all the more reason to take seriously the current legislative proposals to make gathering signatures tougher. The lack of a specific issue – forestry, education, taxation – means that a debate on how signatures are gathered can be accomplished without the added burden of a vote on referendum occurring simultaneously.

A debate is surely needed because gathering signatures has been made easier legislatively over the years while the professionalism used to gather them – the current batch of failures notwithstanding – has grown. Gov. Angus King pledged in his recent State of the State to “offer a proposal to return order to the citizen initiative process and sanctity to our voting places by extending the existing restrictions on polling place politicking to those collecting signatures just as they now apply to those collecting votes.”

Citizen initiatives were created a century ago as an extreme action to be taken only when representative government became incapable of acting in the public’s interest. And indeed, until recently that’s how they were used. In the 30 years before 1970, Maine had a single referendum question on the ballot; in the 30 years since, there have been 33; nine of those came in the last five years – much of the increase came after signature-gathering was made easier by allowing petitioners into polling places.

David Broder, the Washington Post columnist who in 1999 published a book on the subject called “Democracy Derailed,” looks at the issue nationally and sees more than just more profession canvassers. “Like so many other aspects of American politics,” he writes, “the initiative process has become big business. Lawyers, campaign consultants and signature-gathering firms see each election cycle as an opportunity to make money on initiatives that, in many cases, only a handful of people are pushing.”

These campaigns have come to Maine and its low-cost advertising markets in recent years, and so for the pleasure of national interest groups Maine has debated medical marijuana, abortion, gay rights, Death with Dignity, term limits and several other topics. As important as some of these issues are, the process under which they are considered is severely limited. Almost all end up suffering from an absence of legislative process that allows for amendments, modifications unique to Maine that its drafters had not considered and the forum for debate that requires lawmakers to devote at least some time to consider the pros and cons.

All of which a legislative bill would endure and, often, by which it would be improved. Petitioners who think getting the required 42,000 signatures and success in the voting booth is tough ignore the difficulties of turning a bill into a law by going through the Legislature. Public hearings, work sessions, competing measures, committee (sometimes more than one) approval, support in both houses, support from the governor – hurdle after hurdle in a process that can take several tries and years of effort. This is how it should be because the result, with only a few exceptions, can withstand scrutiny.

Some of the ideas Gov. King has suggested for returning to the earlier level of effort needed to get a measure on the ballot are a ban on collecting signatures on Election Day, requiring signatures from every Maine county and raising the threshold of total signatures needed. Other lawmakers have suggested a voluntary review process for the measures – a board of policy analysts would describe the probable effects of the proposal. House Minority Leader Joe Bruno has wondered whether citizen’s initiatives should merely provide an outline and direction for a proposal, which would then go through the usual requirements of representative government before becoming law.

They are all ideas worth considering and now, without the pressure of an upcoming referendum question, is the time to do it.