Sometimes, voting is fun. That’s often the case in presidential election years. Hard as it may be to believe now, President Barack Obama was swept into office three years ago by a wave of enthusiastic support. Millions of Americans registered for the first time and cast their inaugural votes for our nation’s first African-American president.

Congressional elections rarely arouse quite the same passions, but they can be fun, too. The prospect of participating in a national contest still draws voters to the polls in numbers almost as great as in presidential years.

This year, however, voting won’t be much fun.

Off-year elections are the unglamorous, ugly electoral stepsisters of the national contests. Maine has been known to enjoy turnout rates of over 70 percent in presidential election years, and near 60 percent in Congressional years, but in off-year races, we’ve hit statewide turnout rates below 25 percent and the mid-30’s are not uncommon.

This year’s statewide ballot is one of the least exciting we’ve seen in years.

At the top of the ballot is a people’s veto question. Question 1 asks: “Do you want to reject the section of Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 that requires new voters to register to vote at least two business days prior to an election?”

Of course, there are arguments on both sides, but neither side makes a compelling case that much is at stake whether the law survives or perishes.

Those favoring the law (and thus opposing the people’s veto) argue that it will modestly increase the security and integrity of our elections by affording municipal clerks more time to check voter qualifications and to confirm that voters are not erroneously registered to vote in multiple jurisdictions.

Those opposing the law (and thus favoring the veto) argue that ending same-day registration will reduce voter turnout. But since none of the changes we’ve made to the voting registration process — not the advent of same-day registration in 1973, nor the Motor-Voter Act of 1993, nor the Help America Vote Act of 2002 — had any noticeable effect on Maine’s voter turnout rates, there is no reason to think the law’s effect will be large.

A little more convenience for voters, or a little more security? Important, yes. Exciting? Hardly.

Neither do the two citizen initiatives hoping to authorize more gambling offer much to be excited about. Naturally, the groups hoping to profit from new gambling venues have poured money into the race, but on the other side the strongest passion seems to be from existing firms seeking to keep out new competitors.

Among those opposed in principle to profiting from the exploitation of our fellow-citizens’ vices, there seems to be only resignation and weariness. With slot machine gambling in Bangor and the approval of a casino for Oxford County, the question is no longer whether we want our state to become a cold, wet Las Vegas with black flies — apparently we do — but how many glitzy monuments to vanity and greed we’re going to erect.

The last item on the statewide ballot is a constitutional amendment. Odds are, you’ve heard more about Mississippi’s controversial referendum on amending its state constitution to bestow legal “personhood” on human embryos and fetuses than you’ve heard about Maine’s worthy but totally unexciting idea for a constitutional amendment. Maine is proposing to move our state legislative redistricting process into the year immediately following the census and to enshrine in the constitution (rather than in statute) the processes we now follow for redrawing Congressional districts and county commissioner districts.

Even in otherwise unexciting years, some municipalities here and there have competitive races. Waterville’s three-way mayoral race promises to bring some excitement to the polls in the Elm City.

Unexciting contests, however, should not be seen as a burden, but seized as an opportunity.

The great philosopher Immanuel Kant reminds us that we can only really have confidence that we’re doing the right thing for the right reason, when we make ourselves do something that is right, but hard and unpleasant.

It’s easy to tell agreeable truths, but you know that you’re acting on principle only when you tell a hard, unpleasant truth that costs you something.

Exciting elections bring out the sunshine patriots, drawn by the excitement and fun, but voting in a dull, off-year election is like making yourself tell a hard truth. It reveals your character.

Prove what a good citizen you are. Vote on Tuesday. Not because you want to, but because it’s your duty.

Joseph R. Reisert is associate professor of American constitutional law and chairman of the department of government at Colby College in Waterville.