Voter alert: There’s a trick question on your ballot.

Take a deep breath and repeat after us:

“Shall Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a new Section 29, to provide that the Legislature may review any administrative rule to ensure it is consistent with the legislative intent of the statute that the rule was written to interpret, prescribe, implement or enforce; to provide that, after review, the Legislature may approve or reject, in whole or in part, any rule as provided by law; and to provide that legislative approval or rejection of a rule is not subject to gubernatorial veto under Section 10, Article IV, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho?”

The question, better known as HJR 5, sounds innocuous enough to evoke a quick “yes” vote and move on. But The Press editorial board encourages you to vote “no” on this proposed constitutional amendment instead.

We take changing the state constitution very seriously. There must be overwhelming evidence that the change is essential for the betterment of Idaho’s citizenry. That’s not the case with HJR 5. In our view, this proposed amendment is at best unwarranted, and at worst erodes the delicate but vital balance of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Further, we agree with critics who say giving legislators more power essentially empowers the lobbyists who work relentlessly on those same legislators to shape our state’s laws, and that can’t be good for democracy.

We say that at best the measure is unwarranted, and here’s why: Legislators already have the authority to do exactly what’s expressed in this constitutional amendment. The only difference is that the process isn’t memorialized in the Constitution itself, so 10 years or 50 years or 200 years from now, there’s some chance today’s legislative rule-altering authority will have faded away.

That’s not a good enough reason to change the Idaho Constitution. When that Idaho Legislature of the future faces a potential problem, they can resolve it then in a manner most beneficial to citizens at that time.

Two years ago Idaho voters rejected basically the same amendment. Both iterations have been driven by legislators, fortifying the perception that they’re on a quest for more control.

We agree with Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and Gov. Butch Otter that a “no” vote on HJR 5 will better preserve Idaho’s balance of power. We hope that denying the proposed amendment again will finally put the matter to rest.