Referendums can be maddening, especially to the groups that come together to fight off bad ideas. But the demands of direct democracy provide no excuses for monkeying with the state’s constitution.

It’s relatively easy for petitioners to take their issues directly to voters. Yet often, the initiative process is ill-suited to complex legislative matters.

Take tax reform. Ballot initiatives offer simple questions to voters. But the yes-or-no choice often disguises a proposal’s limitations and completely ignores the impact of implementation.

In a bitter fight this year, sponsors of Question 2, which sought to ban certain bear hunting practices, presented voters with a straightforward choice: Do you want to make it illegal to hunt bears with dogs, over bait and with hounds? Voters agreed with the Sun Journal that the ban went too far and took wildlife management out of the hands of scientists. The question failed. About 53 percent of voters said no, compared to 47 percent who said yes.

Still stinging from the effort – and the high cost of victory – the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine is laying the groundwork for an effort to amend the state constitution to put wildlife management issues out of bounds for referendums. The group’s concern is obvious: While it successfully defended bear hunting this year, the fight is far from over and a new referendum could emerge.

We are sympathetic. There are a host of issues that are best addressed away from the ballot box. But establishing a narrow exception to put wildlife issues out of reach of this process is not legitimate.

It’s rightly difficult to amend the constitution. An amendment needs two-thirds support in both the House and Senate and then must go to voters for the final OK. So SAM has a long way to go if it moves forward with this idea.

Instead of working to carve narrow exceptions to Maine’s referendum process, the Sportsman’s Alliance would be better served by dedicating more of its resources to outreach in the southern areas of the state, where the appreciation for hunting is less ingrained.

SAM’s correct. The state likely will see more ballot questions on wildlife issues. And when it does, we trust that voters will have the wisdom to make the right decisions.