There’s a process that happens in the state legislature in which proposed constitutional amendments are given titles describing the nature of the amendments to voters on ballots in the fall election.

Usually, the naming of those amendments is a task given to a three-panel board, but the General Assembly on Tuesday decided that no naming was necessary — the reason: some legislators believe the panel would politicize their naming, and potentially influence voters through the titles of these proposed amendments. The members of the board are Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, Attorney General Josh Stein and Legislative Services Officer Paul Coble. Marshall and Stein are Democrats; Coble is a Republican.

The proposed amendments are as follows:

• Hunting and fishing protections, making both the “preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife;”
• Increased rights for victims of felony crimes;
• A 7-percent cap on state income tax; current rate is 5.499 percent;
• Increase legislators’ role in deciding who should fill judicial vacancies; currently the role of the governor;
• Require voters to show photo ID;
• Shift power to appoint members of nearly 400 state boards to the legislature, as opposed to the governor, as well as give the legislature the right to select the eight members of the Bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections enforcement.
• Each are obviously unique, but on ballots in November they will be referred to solely as “Constitutional Amendment No. (insert-number here).” At first glance, it would appear that the Republican majority is attempting to confuse the voter by forgoing the descriptive caption and replacing it with a generic one. Take another look at the ballot, however, and just below the amendment caption is where the amendment’s description will be located, as always.

Voters this fall will have just as much information to determine their vote “For” or “Against” as they have had for previous amendments. If there is uproar over the change, it’s misplaced. What shouldn’t be misplaced is every voter’s desire to learn exactly what each amendment entails, as well who will be affected by its passage, before going to the polls. Voting for or against shouldn’t be a split-second decision based on a few short sentences that merely summarize an amendment’s intent.