Poll shows Indiana House members wavering on HJR-3
More than a third of the Indiana House members who voted for a constitutional same-sex marriage ban in 2011 now plan to vote against it or are wavering.
The number switching to support the amendment? Zero.
Those statistics reveal how far the debate over gay marriage has shifted in a state where only three years ago, House representatives overwhelmingly approved the ban 70 to 26.
As the House prepares to take up the issue again — as early as Monday — members who have declared a position are split down the middle, an Indianapolis Star poll found.
Of the 100 House members, 38 plan to vote for the measure, while 38 plan to vote against it. The other 24 said they were undecided (13) or declined to comment (11).
• DATABASE:How Indiana House members plan to vote on HJR-3.
• EARLIER:Elections committee advances HJR-3 to full House.
That gives opponents a better shot than most anyone expected just weeks ago, but they still need to woo 13 non-committed lawmakers — including at least 11 Republicans — to kill the ban.
"Everyone assumed it would be closer this time than in 2011," said Andy Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. "But this is a lot closer than I think people would have expected.
"If I were leadership at this time," he said, "I'd be pretty nervous right now."
Even backers acknowledged the shift.
"That's consistent with what we're hearing," said Curt Smith, director of the Indiana Family Institute, a group supporting the amendment. "I think it's tightening."
Still, Smith is "guardedly optimistic" the amendment will win approval, considering that many members voted for the ban in 2011.
Even though a number of Republicans have changed their minds and more may do so, Downs said, "it still looks like it's going to pass on a really close vote."
The expected narrow vote, says Megan Robertson, campaign manager for Freedom Indiana, a coalition opposing the amendment, "shows how divisive it is, which is why it shouldn't be put into our constitution."
Both sides are mounting last-minute efforts to push fence-sitting lawmakers into their camp.
Freedom Indiana held a rally Friday at Christ Church Cathedral on Monument Circle, kicking off a weekend of activities involving faith-based groups. Smith's group, meanwhile, emailed supporters urging them to contact a list of undecided House members, most of them Republicans.
Smith said his group also is telling Republican lawmakers that they're "inviting a primary challenge" if they don't vote for the amendment.
Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to piece together a plan to kill, or at least derail, the proposal. One option: Offering an amendment to eliminate the measure's controversial second sentence, which also would ban civil unions and other similar arrangements.
Some Republicans think the second sentence goes too far and have said they won't vote for the measure unless it is removed.
"If an amendment were to be brought up to remove the second sentence I will fully support this resolution," said Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Mount Vernon. "If the second sentence remains, I will not support the resolution."
That sentence also is a concern for many undecided lawmakers, including Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, who voted yes in 2011.
HJR3's second sentence, he said, "gives me heartburn and gives many of my constituents heartburn."
Both parties will have an opportunity to offer changes to the resolution when it comes to the House floor, perhaps as early as Monday. So far, no Republican has offered a proposal to strike the second sentence.
Rep. Dan Leonard, R-Huntington, who plans to vote "no" because of the sentence, said he would be surprised if any Republican proposes a change, given the pressure from the leadership to pass it as is.
Social conservatives don't want any changes to the resolution because it would require another, separately elected legislature to approve the revised amendment and would delay a public vote for at least another year.
But the tightening vote could embolden a Republican to risk proposing to drop the second sentence to give the amendment a better chance of passing, Downs said.
Regardless of any changes, Rep. Steve Braun, Zionsville, is among Republicans who don't think the amendment is the right step to take in Indiana.
"I come from a business background," said Braun, a Harvard University graduate who started a technology consulting business that went public in 1999 and now owns several businesses.
He said it's uncertain what impact the amendment would have on the business climate but doesn't think it will be positive.
Rep. Rebecca Kubacki, R-Syracuse is among lawmakers who said they were struggling with their votes. She voted for the same amendment in 2011.
"I think it's important that we stay true to our constitution," Kubacki said, but still was weighing the bearing of that consideration against HJR3. She also was waiting to receive more surveys back from constituents and had town hall meetings planned for the weekend.
Still, a majority of House Republicans continue to firmly support the amendment as written.
Rep. Alan Morrison, R-Terre Haute, who was elected after the 2011 vote, said he has no qualms with the amendment.
"I think it's time that Hoosier voters get to vote on this."
Star reporters Jon Murray, Eric Weddle and Stephanie Wang contributed to this story. Call Star reporter Tony Cook at (317) 444-6081. Follow him on Twitter @indystartony.