The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled on the last day of the term that California could not require non-profit organizations to disclose the identity of major donors, holding that the policy infringed on donors’ First Amendment rights. The court said California’s policy did little to aid the state in policing non-profit misconduct, but opened the door to possible abuse, including political retaliation against donors who wished their support of unpopular causes to remain confidential.
Activist groups wanted to be able to discover donors to nonprofits that advocated for causes they opposed. The ruling adds protection to freedom of association rights and was hailed by gun rights groups. It could also protect livestock groups in animal welfare causes and political action groups.
SCOTUS also returned other rights to agriculture and property rights in general. Subject to some restrictions, farm labor union organizers had been allowed onto a farmer’s property to lobby farm workers. Those regulations dated back to Cesar Chavez’s 1970s farmworker movement. The more conservative justices on the court, sensitive to government overreach, regarded such access as an infringement on private property rights. The court ruled that property owners couldn’t be forced to provide access to organizers on their property.
The biggest disappointment was the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the North American Meat Institute’s (NAMI) challenge to California’s Proposition 12’s restrictions on management of farm animals. The rules had been shepherded through the political process by the Humane Society of the United States, prescribing restrictive rules on the size of laying hen cages and swine confinement. The rules not only applied to livestock management in California, but banned sales of food there derived from non-compliant livestock management systems in other states.
Such a ban by one state on all the other states would appear to violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, designed to prevent one state from restricting commerce among states, reserving that power to the federal government. The Court gave no reasons for not granting review, but NAMI will pursue the case through other channels.
As for election integrity, the Supreme Court upheld two provisions of Arizona election law that had been struck down by San Francisco’s 9th Circuit Court. The court ruled that Arizona’s law prohibiting third parties from collecting ballots from voters and delivering them to election officials—often referred to as “ballot harvesting”—did not violate the Constitution. It also ruled that Arizona’s law requiring provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be disallowed was also constitutional.
Both proponents and opponents of these laws agreed that these Supreme Court rulings would make it much harder for Democrats who want to challenge state legislatures that have tightened voting laws. Some states are requiring voter ID, have shortened the time period for accepting ballots, or limited universal mailing of absentee ballot applications.
But the court majority ruled the requirements did not substantially infringe upon voting rights and protected election integrity for all voters. Justice Samuel Alito said while Arizona “generally makes it very easy to vote,” the process of voting entails some level of burden for everyone. “Mere inconvenience” for voters does not violate the law.
The U.S. Senate is struggling with H.R. 1/S. 1, the bill that would strip states of voting laws authority. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) commented on the Arizona cases, saying “the court was right to reject its attempted use by activists to eliminate common sense voting laws. The ruling still protects voter rights and states are rightly empowered to administer and protect America’s elections.”
The Constitution gave the power to administer elections to the state legislatures. While H.R. 1/S.1 would change that without Constitutional amendment, it would likely take years to challenge and meanwhile, multiple elections could be held under new federal rules.
Colorado cattlemen don’t know many details but know the legislature has taken away from agriculture most of the past exemptions from state labor laws. The Labor department representative discussed new regulations coming at the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) convention recently. The bill with a host of amendments was rushed through at the end of this year’s session and the agency is beginning the rulemaking process. CCA’s comments will be invited. Rules and enforcement for all agricultural workers is scheduled for Jan. 1, 2022.
Overtime, rest breaks, paid sick leave and working schedule requirements are just some of the new considerations that cattlemen will have to comply with.
The best news for Colorado cattlemen was that the Initiative 16 ballot petition that would have largely destroyed livestock production in Colorado was ruled non-compliant with petition rules and disallowed by the state Supreme Court. — Steve Dittmer
(Steve Dittmer is the author of the Agribusiness Freedom Foundation newsletter. Views in the column do not necessarily represent the views or opinions ofWLJ or its editorial staff.)
