Colorado’s animal cruelty Initiative 16, also known as Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation (PAUSE), is one step closer to making it on the 2022 ballot. At a rehearing on April 7, the title board heard comments from individuals and industry groups opposed to the measure’s status as a single subject and the language in the title.
Ultimately, most of the concerns were rejected by the title board. The measure was approved as having a single subject, and some of the language in the title name was altered.
Industry groups were dismayed to hear the results of the rehearing, after more than two hours of back-and-forth deliberation between the title board members. Coloradans for Animal Care, a Colorado-based coalition of agriculture and livestock groups, will now request the state Supreme Court review the title board’s decision.
“The title board was wrong in its decision today. Initiative 16 clearly has multiple subjects. The difficulty the title board had in setting the language of the title is clear evidence of that. There are at least three subjects in the initiative and the language of the title is still inaccurate and misleading, and we hope the Supreme Court will agree,” read a statement from the group.
During the meeting, several representatives from industry groups and members of the public voiced their concerns with the ambiguity of the measure. Mark Grueskin, representing attorney for several members of the ag community who submitted a motion for rehearing, alleged the title includes at least three separate subjects.
He asserted the three subjects are: including livestock in the cruelty to animals statute; mandating a life span for certain species before allowing slaughter; and using the “politically charged” phrase “sexual act” to inflame voters’ intent to vote.
Heather Riley, David Peters and Marian Tone represented another group of citizens who requested a motion for rehearing. Peters noted that the initiative affects the majority of the public, but the wording in the draft doesn’t present itself as such.
“A message is sent to people that you can get away with text on the ballot measure that is really misleading to the general public, especially those of us who are not attorneys,” he said at the rehearing.
Tone said there are at least four subjects included in the initiative: turning good animal care practices for livestock into abuse; mandating age before slaughter; expanding the definitions of animals to be all creatures other than humans; and including fish in the animal cruelty statute when they have not been included before.
Tone also added that the initiative’s fiscal impact report is “grossly misadequate and misleading.”
“This will not only affect food security or livestock ranching, fishing, veterinary practices—it will terminate them,” she said.
In response to input given at the rehearing, Alexander Sage, initiative representative, called for the title board to “ignore the emotional pleas and theoretical effects of the initiative on society or the economy” and that the opponents’ claims were entirely subjective.
He said the contents of the initiative all related to one single subject: animal cruelty. He also added that many of the concerns brought up by the opponents were addressed in the initial title hearing.
Sage also stood by the claim that the initiative does not make animal agriculture illegal as there is not any language that says you are not allowed to own livestock or allowed to make money after “killing livestock after their lifespan has been met.”
The title board deliberated for an extensive period of time, uncertain about which language to strike out or add in the title. The board members mentioned several times that their role was to set a clear title and not to interpret the initiative or potential effects. Ultimately, the board found that the title was a single subject and altered some of the language.
[inline_image file=”dee16b42ee03a84a9facaa8854e0eb17.png” caption=”A screen capture of the finalized title for Initiative 16, taken during the title board rehearing April 7.”]
Coloradans for Animal Care will now move forward with petitioning the Supreme Court to review the board’s decision. Otherwise, the initiative will move to the petition and signature-gathering stages. The coalition plans to fight the initiative all the way through. Those interested in getting involved can visit ColoradansForAnimalCare.com. — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
