Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish, Public Question 1 (2016)
| Indiana Public Question 1 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Hunting and fishing | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
| 2016 measures |
|---|
 |
| November 8 |
| Public Question 1 |
| Polls |
| Voter guides |
| Campaign finance |
| Signature costs |
The Indiana Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment, also known as Public Question 1, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Indiana as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was approved.
| A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to include the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife. |
| A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to include the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife. |
Question 1 permitted the constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap to be subjected to regulations promoting wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing. Furthermore, the amendment designated public hunting and fishing as the preferred method of wildlife management.[1]
The amendment was added to the Indiana Bill of Rights.
Citizens of Kansas voted on and approved a similar right to hunt and fish amendment on November 8, 2016.
Election results
| Public Question 1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 1,893,467 | 79.37% | ||
| No | 492,300 | 20.63% | ||
- Election results from Indiana Secretary of State
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ | Public Question #1
Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended by adding a Section 39 to Article 1 to provide that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:
|
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[4]
| “ | Provides that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Indiana's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. Provides that the people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the general assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the general assembly to: (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Provides that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Provides that this constitutional amendment does not limit the application of any laws relating to trespass or property rights. This proposed amendment has been agreed to by one general assembly.[3] | ” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article 1, Indiana Constitution
Public Question 1 added a Section 39 to Article I of the Indiana Constitution. The following text was added by the measure's approval:[1]
Section 39.
(a) The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife:
- (1) is a valued part of Indiana's heritage; and
- (2) shall be forever preserved for the public good.
(b) The people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:
- (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and
- (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.
(c) Hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
(d) This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.[3]
Support
Supporters
Officials
The following officials sponsored the amendment in the Indiana Legislature:[5]
- Sen. Brent Steele (R-44)
- Sen. James Buck (R-21)
- Sen. Carlin Yoder (R-12)
- Sen. Michael Young (R-35)
- Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-14)
- Sen. Jim Tomes (R-49)
- Rep. Sean Eberhart (R-57)
- Rep. Heath VanNatter (R-38)
Other officials supporting the amendment included:
Former officials
- Rep. John D. Ulmer (R-49)[7]
Organizations
- National Rifle Association[8]
- Safari Club International[9]
- WildIndiana[10]
Arguments
The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, which supports the movement to constitutionalize a right to hunt and fish, contended:[11]
| “ | Sportsmen have been under attack for many years by well-funded, national anti-hunting groups who demonstrate a clear disregard for both the cherished traditions of many Americans as well as responsible wildlife management in their drive to eliminate hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are integral parts of the culture and economy of Indiana, as it is one of the top ten deer-hunting states in the country and has more than 450 natural lakes and 21,000 miles of fishable streams, bringing in $923 million annually in revenue and supporting 14,058 jobs.[3] | ” |
Catherine Mortensen, a spokesperson for the NRA, argued:[12]
| “ | Groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Humane Society were going after these laws, sort of in an incremental way. Hunting and fishing and harvesting of wildlife are part of the American fabric. We do feel it’s increasingly under attack by well organized, well funded anti-hunting groups.[3] | ” |
Opposition
Opponents
- The Humane Society[12]
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals[12]
- Hoosier Environmental Council[13]
Arguments
Tim Maloney, Senior Policy Director of the Hoosier Environmental Council, contended:[10]
| “ | We don't believe this is the type of activity that should be elevated to the level of constitutional protection.[3] | ” |
Sen. Greg Taylor (D-33), in a debate with Sen. Steele (R-44), argued that Question 1 was unnecessary:[14]
| “ | … I respect your need to wanting to hunt and fish. But nothing you’ve said in your presentation makes me think the United States is ever going to take away that right.[3] | ” |
Rep. Matt Pierce (D-61) criticized the measure's proponents, saying:[12]
| “ | What you tend to hear from proponents is that they’ve heard of some nefarious conspiracy in which the Humane Society of the United States, in league with some multi-billionaire, will wash so much money into the political system that it will convince members of the legislature to outlaw hunting and fishing. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.[3] | ” |
Joel Kerr of Indianapolis called the amendment an "NRA ploy." He argued:[15]
| “ | When you think of the constitution, most people think of things like the right to free speech or the right to vote. This amendment would place the right to hunt and fish (things that are already legal) in the same category as your other inalienable rights.
It states that hunting and fishing will be the “preferred method of wildlife management” in Indiana. This would seem to place hunting legally ahead of non-lethal forms of wildlife management (relocation, fencing, contraception, etc.) and may interfere in future efforts to find new ways to manage our wildlife. The amendment may also limit the ability of local municipalities to pass their own laws to protect wildlife in their area as they see fit.[3] |
” |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $0.00 |
| Opposition: | $0.00 |
As of February 17, 2017, no ballot question committees registered to support or oppose Public Question 1.[16]
Media editorials
Support
Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in support of Public Question 1. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.
Opposition
| “ | Those who want voters to pick “yes” for this question say this change will forever enshrine hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife as a valued part of Indiana’s heritage. Here’s what they’re missing:
With or without this amendment, those things will remain a valued part of the state’s heritage. So will the right to play basketball, grow tomatoes and sweet corn, and race cars or bicycles. The state constitution needn’t be amended to protect those latter three. And it needn’t be amended to protect the first three, either. If it is, the process will trivialize the state’s most important core protections such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[3] |
” |
- The Journal Gazette said:[19]
| “ | First, it’s completely unnecessary. Like the U.S. Constitution, the Indiana Constitution guarantees the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That covers hunting, fishing and a myriad other activities, as long as those pursuits don’t infringe upon other rights.
Not only does placing hunting and fishing rights alongside such core protections as freedom of speech and religion trivialize the Constitution, it threatens to undermine legitimate laws and regulations. If the right to hunt and fish is needlessly elevated above other kinds of concerns, who knows what kind of bizarre legal challenges to environmental, safety or endangered-species regulations could clog the state’s courts? Judges need to balance freedoms and responsibilities in a broad array of situations – one reason constitutional rights have traditionally been expressed in broad principles rather than narrow specifics. Finally, there is this not inconsiderable point: No sentient human being can believe that the state of Indiana would actually ban hunting and fishing. From the beginning, this proposal has been a colossal waste of time and energy whose passage could work costly mischief with courts and regulators and trivialize a magnificent document.[3] |
” |
Background
As of November 2024, 24 states had constitutional provisions providing for the right to hunt and fish. Vermont was the first state to constitutionalize such a right in 1777. The other 22 states have adopted right to hunt and fish amendments since 1996. The state constitutions of California and Rhode Island include amendments guaranteeing the right to fish, but not to hunt.[20]
List
The following is a list of state ballot measures to adopt right to hunt and fish amendments:
| State | Year | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL | 2024 | Amendment 2 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and fish |
|
6,941,307 (67%) |
3,365,987 (33%) |
|
| UT | 2020 | Constitutional Amendment E | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and to fish |
|
1,063,212 (75%) |
355,848 (25%) |
|
| NC | 2018 | Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife |
|
2,083,123 (57%) |
1,563,090 (43%) |
|
| IN | 2016 | Public Question 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods |
|
1,893,467 (79%) |
492,300 (21%) |
|
| KS | 2016 | Constitutional Amendment 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods |
|
926,970 (81%) |
213,104 (19%) |
|
| TX | 2015 | Proposition 6 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods |
|
1,260,763 (81%) |
294,973 (19%) |
|
| AL | 2014 | Amendment 5 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including traditional methods |
|
789,777 (80%) |
199,483 (20%) |
|
| MS | 2014 | HCR 30 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods |
|
524,423 (88%) |
71,683 (12%) |
|
| ID | 2012 | HJR 2 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap, including traditional methods |
|
456,514 (73%) |
165,289 (27%) |
|
| KY | 2012 | Amendment | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife |
|
1,298,340 (84%) |
238,320 (16%) |
|
| NE | 2012 | Amendment 2 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife |
|
557,534 (77%) |
169,250 (23%) |
|
| WY | 2012 | Amendment B | Provide for a state constitutional right to harvest wild bird, fish, and game |
|
212,561 (89%) |
25,564 (11%) |
|
| AR | 2010 | Amendment 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife |
|
612,495 (83%) |
127,444 (17%) |
|
| AZ | 2010 | Proposition 109 | Provide for state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife |
|
714,144 (44%) |
926,991 (56%) |
|
| SC | 2010 | Amendment 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife |
|
1,126,228 (89%) |
139,668 (11%) |
|
| TN | 2010 | Amendment | Provide for state constitutional right to hunt and fish |
|
1,255,840 (87%) |
181,465 (13%) |
|
| OK | 2008 | State Question 742 | Establish a constitutional right to hunt, trap, fish, and take game, granting authority to the Wildlife Conservation Commission. |
|
1,082,341 (80%) |
269,787 (20%) |
|
| GA | 2006 | Amendment 2 | Preserve the ability to fish and hunt in Georgia and ensure it is managed by law and regulation for the public good |
|
1,626,226 (81%) |
379,024 (19%) |
|
| LA | 2004 | Question 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and trap |
|
1,195,445 (81%) |
279,926 (19%) |
|
| MT | 2004 | C-41 | Provide for a state constitutional right to harvest wild fish and game |
|
345,505 (81%) |
83,185 (19%) |
|
| WI | 2003 | Question 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and take game |
|
668,459 (82%) |
146,182 (18%) |
|
| ND | 2000 | Measure 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, trap, and take game |
|
206,443 (77%) |
61,531 (23%) |
|
| VA | 2000 | Question 2 | Provide for a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game |
|
1,448,154 (60%) |
970,266 (40%) |
|
| MN | 1998 | Amendment 3 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt, fish, and take game |
|
1,570,720 (77%) |
462,749 (23%) |
|
| AL | 1996 | Amendment 1 | Provide for a state constitutional right to hunt and fish |
|
955,149 (81%) |
218,350 (19%) |
Map
The following map shows which states have constitutional rights to hunt and fish in their state constitutions:
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Indiana Constitution
In order to place a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the ballot in Indiana, it must be passed by a simple majority of the members elected to each of the two chambers over two legislative sessions.
On February 10, 2015, the Indiana Senate approved the amendment, with 42 senators voting "yea" and seven voting "nay." The Indiana House of Representatives took up the amendment on April 14, 2015. The measure was approved, with 81 representatives voting in support and 12 voting against.[1]
Senate vote
February 10, 2015
| Indiana SJR 2 Senate Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 42 | 85.71% | ||
| No | 7 | 14.29% | ||
House vote
April 14, 2015
| Indiana SJR 2 House Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 81 | 87.10% | ||
| No | 12 | 12.90% | ||
"No" votes
The majority of the Senate's Democrats voted against placing the amendment on the ballot. However, only one-third of House Democrats voted against the amendment. In the House, three Republicans voted down the measure. The legislators voting against certifying Question 1 were:[1]
- Sen. Jean Breaux (D-34)
- Sen. Timothy Lanane (D-25)
- Sen. Lonnie Randolph (D-2)
- Sen. Earline Rogers (D-3)
- Sen. Mark Stoops (D-40)
- Sen. Karen Tallian (D-4)
- Sen. Greg Taylor (D-33)
- Rep. John Bartlett (D-95)
- Rep. Greg Beumer (R-33)
- Rep. Charlie Brown (D-3)
- Rep. Linda Lawson (D-1)
- Rep. Daniel Leonard (R-50)
- Rep. Matt Pierce (D-61)
- Rep. Gregory Porter (D-96)
- Rep. Cherrish Pryor (D-94)
- Rep. Thomas Saunders (R-54)
- Rep. Robin Shackleford (D-98)
- Rep. Vernon Smith (D-14)
- Rep. Vanessa Summers (D-99)
State profile
| Demographic data for Indiana | ||
|---|---|---|
| Indiana | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 6,612,768 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 35,826 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 84.2% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 9.2% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 1.9% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.2% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 2.2% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 6.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 87.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 24.1% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $49,255 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.4% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Indiana. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Indiana
Indiana voted Republican in six out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in Indiana, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.[21]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Indiana had five Retained Pivot Counties, 2.76 percent of all Retained Pivot Counties.
More Indiana coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Indiana
- United States congressional delegations from Indiana
- Public policy in Indiana
- Endorsers in Indiana
- Indiana fact checks
- More...
Recent news
This section links to a Google news search for the term "Indiana + right + hunt + fish + amendment"
Related measures
| Hunting and fishing measures on the ballot in 2016 | |
|---|---|
| State | Measures |
| Oregon | Oregon Wildlife Trafficking Prevention, Measure 100
|
| Kansas | Kansas Right to Hunt and Fish, Constitutional Amendment 1 |
See also
External links
- Senate Joint Resolution 2
- National Conference of State Legislators, "State Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish," March 26, 2015
Additional reading
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Indiana General Assembly, "State Enrolled Joint Resolution No. 2," accessed May 10, 2016
- ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Senate Act 57," accessed September 7, 2016
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "SJR 2," accessed May 15, 2016
- ↑ Indiana General Assembly, "Senate Joint Resolution 2," accessed May 10, 2016
- ↑ Greensburg Daily News, "NRA-backed amendment heading to Indiana ballot," March 29, 2016
- ↑ The Journal Gazette, "Question 1 will protect our wildlife traditions," October 21, 2016
- ↑ National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, "NRA-Backed Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment heading to November Ballot in Indiana," March 24, 2016
- ↑ Safari Club International, "Preserve the Right to Hunt and Fish in Indiana," July 22, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 News-Sentinel, "Voters will decide if Indiana Constitution should be amended to include a right to hunt and fish," October 26, 2016
- ↑ National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, "Indiana: Support the Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment on the November Ballot!" August 18, 2016
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Huffington Post, "NRA, PETA Battle Over ‘Murdering Animals’," May 6, 2014
- ↑ Governing, "Are Fishing and Hunting a Right or a Privilege? Indiana and Kansas Will Decide," September 22, 2016
- ↑ Indiana Public Media, "‘Right to Hunt and Fish’ Amendment Passes Senate," February 11, 2013
- ↑ The Indianapolis Star, "‘Right to hunt’ is NRA ploy," October 7, 2016
- ↑ Indiana Election Division,"Campaign finance committee search" accessed September 9, 2016
- ↑ Kokomo Tribune, "Amendment unnecessary," October 30, 2016
- ↑ Evansville Courier & Press, "Editorial: An unnecessary amendment," November 2, 2016
- ↑ The Journal Gazette, "Exercise your right to vote 'no'," October 9, 2016
- ↑ National Shooting Sports Foundation, "State “Right to Hunt and Fish” Protections," accessed May 20, 2015
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
 |
State of Indiana Indianapolis (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
