Supporters of a marijuana-legalization amendment have every right to cry foul over a decision last week to remove key arguments in favor of their measure from this year’s ballot information booklet.

Voters should see all important arguments both for and against an amendment, not just a select few.

It’s not that we favor Amendment 64. We haven’t taken a position on the measure and in fact raised questions several months ago about the wisdom of adding such language to the state constitution.

But there’s no question that several of the most common arguments made on behalf of it have been edited from the blue book that goes to voters.

Worse, the legislative committee that took out the language did so more or less by accident. At least six of its members didn’t realize what was happening and later voted unsuccessfully to restore the language.

The measure’s supporters responded by asking a court to stop the state from printing the blue book without the language. Although a hearing Monday failed to resolve the matter, it will be taken up again Wednesday.

As the amendment’s backers point out, the constitution requires the state to present a “fair and impartial analysis” of each amendment. It’s hard to see how that could be done without providing voters with the best arguments on both sides — and that’s precisely what the blue book usually does.

In this case, however, the committee removed the following language: “The use of marijuana by adults may be less harmful than the use of alcohol or tobacco, both of which are already legal for adults to use and are regulated by the state. Furthermore, marijuana may be beneficial for individuals with certain debilitating conditions. The consequences of burdening adults with a criminal record for the possession of small amounts of marijuana are too severe, and there are better uses for state resources than prosecuting such low-level crimes.”

The committee voted unanimously to remove those three sentences, which were part of a longer paragraph. But a number of its members thought those arguments were going to reappear in a separate paragraph. And no wonder: Sen. Mark Scheffel, R-Parker, who offered the fateful motion, indicated he was trying to “tackle this paragraph in two parts” — but then never returned to the issue after the first vote.

The committee is within its rights to edit the blue book if it can muster a supermajority. Yet Scheffel’s motion apparently would have failed to get the needed number if everyone had understood his intentions.

We’re not suggesting Amendment 64’s destiny could turn on a few missing phrases. But many voters do in fact look to the blue book for information, and there is absolutely no reason it shouldn’t fairly reflect the best arguments by both sides — no matter how contentious the issue. Thanks to the clumsy work of a legislative committee, however, this year it may not.