SHELLA: Youth vote might negate marriage polls

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Jim ShellaTwenty-fourteen will be a year of love and politics in Indiana.

At this stage, it appears the dominant issue from the beginning of the legislative session to the November election and beyond will be the marriage amendment, the proposed addition to our state constitution that would permanently ban gay marriage. It’s about who you can love, or at least, whose love is legally recognized.

There’s a lot of conflicting information out there about how the public feels about it. At least at first glance, it seems to be conflicting. Let me help explain some of it.

A recent poll by the Indiana Family Institute (supporters of traditional marriage between a man and a woman) showed that the public supports the marriage amendment by 62 percent to 39 percent, a solid majority. It’s a poll conducted by a GOP pollster familiar with Indiana, Chris Wilson, and it measured likely voters. That’s a key and I’ll get back to that in a minute.

A recent poll by Freedom Indiana (advocates for gay marriage) showed that the public opposes the marriage amendment by 46 percent to 43 percent. It was conducted by Christine Matthews, a highly regarded pollster who did all the survey work for Mitch Daniels. She measured registered voters, and that’s a very different sample.

Late last year, the WISH-TV/Ball State Hoosier Survey found that just 38 percent supported the marriage amendment with 54 percent opposed. The survey was conducted by Pew Research, another highly regarded source of information. Pew didn’t use a voter screen. That means that the poll measured the feelings of all adults in Indiana, a sample used because the public policy created by the marriage amendment will affect everyone.

(There will be a new Hoosier Survey out soon that will measure adults and registered voters in separate samples.)

Here’s what you can draw from all of this: The public is more liberal on this question than voters are, and registered voters are more liberal than likely voters. And, of course, everybody now has scientific data that they can point to in fundraising efforts.

Ah, fundraising! Here’s why that’s important. If the marriage amendment is approved by the Legislature (and that’s a more conservative bunch than just about any sample), there will be a statewide referendum on the marriage amendment in November 2014.

That referendum will attract more attention, by far, than the race for the secretary of state that will be at the top of the ballot. Freedom Indiana is promising what it calls “governor level funding” for a television campaign.

What’s that mean? Let’s go back to the Indiana Family Institute, where head honcho Curt Smith has established a political action committee. He plans to raise about $5 million for TV ads to drive marriage amendment supporters to the polls. He expects his opponents to raise $15 million, three times as much.

(Freedom Indiana has already studied the ads used effectively in Minnesota last year to defeat a similar referendum.)

That’s the sort of spending that could have a big effect on the number and thinking of likely voters.

One Republican legislator has told me he worries the amendment will produce a turnout of young and liberal voters of the sort Barack Obama produced in 2008.

That means a poll of likely voters means little at this point.

A poll of registered voters means even less.

We’re going to have to play this game to see who wins.

Don’t you love politics?•


Shella is WISH-TV Channel 8’s political reporter as well as host and producer of the Emmy-nominated “Indiana Week in Review.” Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.