Losing long term, state property tax referendum

I am an ardent supporter of the “Vote No on Public Question #1,” the campaign in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment permanently capping property taxes. But I question the words chosen to encourage voters to reject the issue.

On the group’s Facebook page, one reason provided to vote no is, “It’s the law — we do not need it in the Constitution.”

I can’t help but wonder why the issue’s supporters haven’t chosen stronger language to make their case.

Of course, they are right to note a difference between making a law and amending the Constitution. It’s not clear that limiting property taxes is so fundamental that it should be enumerated in the Constitution. Some people might be persuaded to vote no on this basis.

And more importantly, when a law is enshrined in the Constitution, it becomes much more difficult to alter or repeal.

But I have a suspicion that these concerns are only incidental to the “Vote No” campaign’s mission. They certainly are only secondary reasons compelling me to oppose the proposition.

Indeed, the real reason I find myself in opposition to this referendum is that I disagree with the same policies being put into place in any circumstance. Put simply, I believe they’re bad public policies.

The people running the “Vote No” campaign seem to be thinking along the same lines.

Campaigners list other reasons to vote no on the group’s Facebook page, including that the policy “disproportionately benefits owners of expensive properties” and “deprives Hoosiers of essential public services.”

To me and the people running the website, the substance of the proposition seems more important than its status as law or amendment. So why not say so?

The group’s rhetoric is doubtlessly calculated to capture middle-ground votes.

I have to confess that I’m guilty of as much.

When it came to arguing against Indiana’s seemingly annual attempt to incorporate into the Constitution a ban on same-sex marriage, I eagerly pointed out that Indiana laws have already banned same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, this argument has limited efficacy.

It did some good in the moment; the Indiana Constitution still has not been amended to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Eventually repealing the law will thus be somewhat more facile.

But by refusing to take on the real issue — whether same-sex marriage should be banned under any circumstances — we lost a chance to expand the opportunities available to same-sex couples.

Whether prohibited by the legislature or a voter-approved amendment, same-sex couples still can’t marry in Indiana.

And whether Public Question One passes or is voted down and polls unfortunately suggest it will indeed pass, a law will continue to limit our flexibility to provide for community services and public workers’ salaries as tax increases become necessary to support them.

Hoosiers ought to take a moment to evaluate why we continually have to defend progressive causes against conservative amendments.

Perhaps if we convinced people of our cause’s merit instead of surrendering ourselves to arguing a distinction between law and amendment, we would find ourselves advancing rather than defending important issues.


E-mail: wallacen@indiana.edu