Zach Osowski

Zach.Osowski@courierpress.com

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana voters overwhelming decided to amend the state constitution's bill of rights, adding a right to hunt and fish.

At 9 p.m. Tuesday, AP called the race with 50 percent of precincts reporting and 80 percent of voters favoring the constitutional amendment.

The amendment prohibits local governments from passing laws banning hunting or fishing; and empowers only the Indiana General Assembly to change laws governing hunting and fishing. It also stipulates that hunting is the preferred method for controlling wildlife populations.

Joel Schumm, a clinical professor of law at Indiana University's Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said he wasn't surprised by the big win for the amendment. He said the question got lost in the shuffle with other big races going on in Indiana. He said for the most part, voters probably looked at the question and decided hunting is something that should be protected.

Live: 2016 Election Results

"Hunting and fishing is deeply ingrained in our culture and our state," Schumm said. "The opposition's argument was the amendment was unnecessary, which isn't a very compelling case."

Schumm said he doesn't think this amendment will have too big of an impact because it still allows the General Assembly to govern hunting and fishing. He said the issue could go to the courts at some point if a citizen uses the new right as a defense.

The amendment got on the ballot after being approved by two separate General Assemblies in 2014 and 2016. Proponents of the law say it aims to preserve Indiana's hunting heritage and pre-empt any future attempts to ban hunting. Although there have been no pushes in Indiana to ban hunting, some lawmakers want to make sure it can't happen.

Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, one of the amendment's co-authors as it moved through the Statehouse, said hunting is part of the fabric of Indiana and should be protected for future generations.

Braden Pelley, an Indianapolis resident, said he voted for the amendment because it preserves a right he believes he already has in Indiana. "Hunting and fishing is a right I've always had and something that was passed down to me from my father," Pelley said.

Donald Trump and Indiana's Mike Pence win presidential race

Opponents of the amendment, including animal rights activists, are worried it could have unintended consequences. Joel Kerr, executive director of the Indiana Animal Rights Alliance, said making hunting the preferred method for controlling animal populations could severely hamper wildlife management efforts, especially if the number of Hoosiers who hunt declines.

Some Indiana attorneys criticized the amendment because it protects an activity, which they say is the opposite of how the state constitution should work. Doug Masson, an attorney from Lafayette, said the constitution is designed to limit government intrusion, not protect certain things.

"We should only amend the constitution when there is a clear need," Masson said. "It’s a foundational document, and we should not tinker with it lightly."

Zach Osowski is the Statehouse Reporter for the Evansville Courier & Press.

Download the IndyStar Mobile Apps

Tully: A little advice for our new governor, Eric Holcomb

Republican challenger McCormick wins over Ritz

Supporters declare victory for mass transit tax hike in Marion County

Pence could play influential role as the next vice president