When the Irish government announced it would hold two referendums on International Women’s Day it billed the votes as opportunities to embed inclusivity and equality in a constitution dating from 1937.
Voters will on Friday be asked to delete article 41.2, the so-called “women in the home” provision, and enshrine two proposed amendments on care and family.
Compared with the landmark 2015 same-sex marriage referendum and the 2018 abortion referendum this outing to polling stations appeared a relatively low-stakes exercise in constitutional tidying up.
But confusion, apathy and criticism of the amendments’ wording have raised the possibility of an embarrassing defeat for the government and progressive groups that have urged a “yes, yes” vote.
Polls show a still sizeable lead for a double yes but also indicate that 35% of voters remain undecided and that turnout could be low. Voting stations open at 7am and close at 10pm.
‘Yes, yes’ campaigners at a photocall organised by the National Women's Council in Dublin. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images
The taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, made a last-ditch attempt to persuade voters this week when he said Ireland would be taking a “step backwards” if it voted no.
“I think a no vote would be a setback for the country, quite frankly,” he said. “It would say to a lot of people, hundreds of thousands of people and children, that they’re not in a family as far as our constitution is concerned. And that would be a step backwards, I think.
“It would also mean in relation to care that the very old-fashioned language about women in the home and mothers’ duties in the home would be maintained.”
Article 41.2 reads: “The state recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The state shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
The so-called care amendment proposes a new clause that would say: “The state recognises that the provision of care, by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.”
The other vote, known as the family amendment, will propose expanding the definition of a family beyond marriage to include those in “durable relationships”.
Some critics complained the wording was vague and could have unexpected implications in areas such as tax and citizen nationalisation, and could discriminate against certain people, such as single parents. Others said the amendments were insipid, uninspiring and failed to support carers.
There has also been a question mark over advocacy groups using public funds to campaign for yes votes.
∎