“Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?”

This editorial board does not want to change those election laws. We’re endorsing a “No” vote on Question 1 on the November ballot.

Last year, more people turned out to vote in Maine than ever before. In recent years, Maine has ranked at or near the top for voter turnout nationally. We’re interested in voting here and we’re pretty good at it.

The citizen-initiated referendum question on this year’s state ballot, however, would put even the most staunch civic commitment to the test.

Should Question 1 pass, the voters who used absentee voting last year — more than half of all voters in Maine, very far from a small subset — would repeatedly have to take steps to ensure they could rely on that same process again.

This referendum asks Maine voters to approve that and several other more novel terms and conditions. These proposed changes, affecting eligibility for absentee voting, limiting availability of ballot drop boxes and making shorter the window within which to vote, are too numerous and sweeping by far. That’s a result of premise of the measure itself being too sweeping by far.

It’s not that Maine’s system of voting is perfect as it is. In our conversations regarding the many changes that Question 1 would make to our voting process, members of this editorial board were broadly in favor of a photo ID requirement at polling places.

Our theoretical support for this modest, easily defined and met condition is shared by a strong majority of respondents in recent national polling and, thus, is probably something the Legislature should endeavor to explore for Maine.

In the meantime, trust in civic, social and political institutions and processes in America is swimming against a powerful current these days, and in recent months we’ve heard from plenty of concerned readers who say they just want things tightened up.

A reasoned campaign for increased attention to detail and tightening up is well and good. The campaign for Question 1, though, springs from fear and suspicion. It is not rooted in evidence and does not take a measured approach.

Against this tense and distrustful backdrop, it’s a real pity that the wording of the question itself by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows led to considerable controversy earlier this year — and a subsequent legal challenge, which failed — and that, as worded, it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of some of the measure’s supporters.

It does seem fair to us to say Question 1 — presented, as it is, in a list structure, with a bogeyman catch-all ending (“other changes”) — isn’t exactly worded to succeed. It is also fair to say that what it sets out before voters, element by element, is truthful and accurate.

At best, Question 1 seeks to crack down harshly on a range of shady dealings that are either imaginary or anxiously anticipated. At worst, Question 1 itself can be regarded as a bit of shady dealing.

While we do not have anything like proof that our democratic process in Maine is under siege or otherwise being compromised by bad actors, people are sensitive to risk nowadays — real or perceived — and fear can be a powerful motivator.

We must all keep in mind that this very muscular bid for increased election security comes at an easily appraised and steep cost to voters’ access to their votes; older, rural and voters with disabilities in particular.

Such a trade-off makes zero sense for Maine.

The process Question 1 is supposed to protect is the same process it would, if implemented, saddle with hassles and limitations. Let’s not do that. We hope you will join us in voting “No.”

The editorial board of the Maine Trust for Local News, which operates independently of its newsrooms, is composed of opinion editor Siobhán Brett, culture columnist Leslie Bridgers, political columnist Steve Collins, managing director Stefanie Manning, assistant opinion editor Scott Paida and sports columnist Travis Lazarczyk.

[email protected]