Much to the relief of those in agriculture, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled June 21 in a 7-0 vote that a proposed animal cruelty measure was unconstitutional. Initiative 16, also known as PAUSE, would criminalize basic animal husbandry practices and define minimum age limits for livestock slaughter.
The Colorado title board held a hearing in May and a rehearing in early April over the initiative’s ballot title, ultimately deciding the title was adequate and checked all the legal boxes. The high court’s recent move reversed the title board’s ruling, with the court calling the title a violation of the single-subject requirement.
“The initiative’s central theme is incorporating livestock into the animal cruelty statues, but expanding the definition of ‘sexual act with an animal’ would criminalize additional conduct regardless of whether that conduct is directed at livestock or other animals,” the Supreme Court opinion read.
The initiative proposed to amend Colorado’s criminal animal cruelty statutes, as well as end exemptions for livestock; create a “safe harbor” for the slaughter of livestock with various conditions; and expand the definition of “sexual act with an animal.”
The Supreme Court found the initiative contained at least two subjects. The main theme of the initiative was to incorporate livestock into the animal cruelty statutes, but redefining “sexual act with an animal” leads to a second subject by addressing all animals and not just livestock.
“Because these subjects are not necessarily and properly connected, there is the potential for the very kind of voter surprise against which the single-subject requirement seeks to guard—here, voters might not understand that what is nominally a livestock initiative also affects the care of all animals, or vice versa,” the opinion read.
Ag groups celebrated the decision.
“The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association appreciates and agrees with the Supreme Court’s ruling that Initiative 16 covered multiple subjects and should not advance to the ballot,” said Janie VanWinkle, president of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association (CCA). “We appreciate [Coloradans for Animal Care] and statewide support in opposing this measure. It would take away consumer choice and in the process hurt our environment, economy and the very animals the proponents claimed they wanted to protect.”
Coloradans for Animal Care was created to oppose the initiative and is made up of several different industry groups in the state of Colorado, including CCA and Colorado Farm Bureau (CFB).
“The coalition will continue to defend the agriculture industry from extreme measures like this one, whether it comes from these proponents or others,” the group said in a released statement. “Support for the coalition grew throughout the challenge process and is expected to continue growing if other initiatives are filed.”
Carlyle Currier, CFB president, said the decision sends a strong message to supporters of the initiative and anyone else who is interested in a responsible ballot initiative process. “This process has been abused for far too long, and this is yet another reminder that ambiguous language, bait-and-switch tactics, and attempts to conceal the real-world results of ballot initiatives are bad for our state and will not be allowed to stand.”
The Supreme Court’s decision voided any signatures that were collected in support of the measure. If the petitioners wish to pursue the initiative, they must redraft and file another title with the title board—beginning the process all over again. This could take weeks to months.
More information on Coloradans for Animal Care’s efforts to oppose the initiative can be found at coloradansforanimalcare.com.
Dйjа vu in Oregon
Producers in the state of Oregon are going through a similar battle with Initiative Petition 13 (IP13). The proposal would remove exceptions to the state’s animal crime statutes and add breeding animals to the list of acts that constitute sexual assault of an animal. The measure would also classify common activities as abuse, such as transportation, rodeos, slaughter, fishing, hunting, agricultural research and others.
The Election Division received a certified ballot title from the attorney general on June 21 for IP13. A total of 19 electors commented on the draft ballot title, which the Department of Justice reviewed before drafting the certified ballot title. Included in the comments was a coalition of 12 industry groups, including the Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.
The attorney general modified and approved the ballot title as follows: “Criminalizes injuring/killing animals, including killing for food, hunting, fishing; criminalizes most breeding practices. Exceptions.”
The result of a “yes” vote description was modified to read as: “Criminalizes injuring/killing animals, including farming, ranching, hunting, fishing, trapping, pest control, research/teaching. Exceptions for veterinary practices, self-defense. Criminalizes most breeding practices.”
The result of a “no” vote description was altered to read: “Retains current law allowing injury/death in various circumstances, including for purposes of farming for food, hunting, fishing, trapping, pest control, animal research.”
Appeals to the ballot title must be submitted to the Oregon Supreme Court by July 6. They may be submitted by email to irrlistnotifier.sos@oregon.gov; fax to 503-373-7414; or mail to 255 Capitol St NE, Ste 501, Salem, OR 97310.
Petitioners also have until July 8 to collect 112,000 signatures to put the initiative on the 2022 ballot, if the title is approved.
For more information on the industry’s opposition against IP13, visit oregoniansforanimalcare.org. — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
