Three Allegheny County judges sitting as the election board made the right call when they knocked dueling drink-tax referendum questions off the November ballot. Too bad it won't be the last call.

The first question, put forward by bar and restaurant owners with a petition that contained 44,598 signatures, would have asked voters if the county should reduce the tax on served alcoholic drinks from the current 10 percent to 0.5 percent. The tax was proposed by Chief Executive Dan Onorato and enacted by County Council, along with a $2 a day levy on car rentals, to generate $30 million for the Port Authority.

The second question, crafted by Democrats on council, was an attempt to warn voters of the consequences of passing the first. It would have asked if the county should increase real estate taxes in order to repeal the drink tax.

In both cases, the judges said the questions were illegal because citizens don't have the right to set tax rates and because county statutes limit referenda to questions that are binding, not merely advisory.

Common Pleas Court Judges Christine Ward, Jill E. Rangos and Dwayne D. Woodruff sat as the Board of Elections in place of the usual members because Mr. Onorato and councilmen Chuck McCullough and John DeFazio had taken public positions on the issue. The three experienced judges reached their conclusion quickly and unanimously, based on state and county statutes and legal precedent.

But bar and restaurant owners, who formed the group Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation, aren't buying the ruling and say they'll appeal it. This won't do anything more than drag this debate out for at least a few more weeks. (County Council would have to approve appealing the ruling on its question, and no decision has been made yet.)

As written, these ballot questions were mere public opinion polls. Depending on the outcome, the most they could have offered was some political cover for unpopular decisions, and they threatened to put the county budget into a tailspin.

When voters elect their County Council representatives, they empower those individuals to set policy and the tax rates necessary to fund those policies. In this case, Mr. Onorato and a majority on council crafted a necessary, if imperfect, solution in order to fund the county's vital mass transit system. If voters don't like the remedy, their recourse is in the voting booth, not on the flawed referenda but the next time those officials stand for re-election.

At the risk of sounding like that bar patron who has had one too many and keeps repeating the same thing, here's our recommendation, again: See how much money the tax generates in its first full year. If it's more than the sum needed for the Port Authority, and estimates suggest it will be, reduce the tax rate proportionately.

That's a call for the elected officials at another time. First, we'll have to wait until the door is closed on all the appeals.