Saturday I attended the Legislative Third House, sponsored by the Kosciusko County Chamber of Commerce. They did such a wonderful job. Mark Dobson is always so gracious in allowing everyone to ask questions and is an extremely fair moderator.
If you have not attended one of those meetings, you should. They are so informative. By educating ourselves, we are informed voters, and informed voters give us great representation.
I am especially appreciative of Senator Mishler, Senator Head, and Representative Wolkins for clearing their schedules to come out on a Saturday morning. They are doing an incredible job representing us. I appreciate their open door, their listening ear and candid answers.
To my disappointment, there was an empty seat at the table. For some reason, State Representative Rebecca Kubacki was not there to answer our questions. I know many of us who attended got up early in hopes that she would be able to answer questions as to her sudden Democrat-like voting record that she has presented since her re-election.
I personally wanted to know why she campaigned as a pro-marriage candidate, then after elected, turned around and stabbed us in the back by killing the marriage amendment, not only once, but twice. I really would have loved an answer to that.
I would love to have questioned her on her polling data she presented at the last meeting. I attended two legislative updates Saturday. I found it fascinating that Senator Mishler’s polling data on the marriage question showed 75 percent support adding the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the Indiana Constitution. Senator Mishler’s district overlaps Ms. Kubacki’s and even includes St. Joseph County, a more liberal area.
Senator Banks poll showed 79 percent in favor. Representative Kubacki told us at her last meeting only 43 percent of her district wanted the opportunity to vote. I’m no mathematician, but I smell a skunk in those numbers. I had that question today, and was unable to ask it because she wasn’t there to face her constituents after her vote.
Could it be that maybe she didn’t want to face the 75 percent of voters she betrayed? Her “scheduling conflict” was a bit convenient, if you ask me. I hope that at the next town hall, we are all able to ask her those questions. Because I think the constituents of District 22 deserve that.