2016 Oklahoma State Question 777

Last updated

State Question 777
Flag of Oklahoma.svg
November 8, 2016 (2016-11-08)

Oklahoma Right to Farm Referendum
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes569,66839.71%
Light brown x.svg No864,82760.29%
Total votes1,434,495 [1] 100.00%

2016 Oklahoma State Question 777 by precinct.svg
2016 OK state question 777 results.svg
No:      >90%     80–90%     70–80%     60–70%     50–60%

Yes:      >90%     80–90%     70–80%     60–70%     50–60%

Contents

Other:      Tie     No votes

Oklahoma State Question 777 was a referendum on a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution held in November 2016. The referendum attempted to exempt agriculture and agribusiness from compliance with state laws passed in 2015 and later, unless a "compelling state interest" was involved.

The referendum was hotly controversial. Supporters referred to State Question 777 as 'right to farm', while opposition groups referred to it as the 'right to harm', citing concerns over water supply quality, animal welfare, small farmer interests, and loss of representative government. The amendment was generally agreed by scholars and the media to be poorly written with much room for interpretation by legislators and judges, which would likely cause numerous expensive and time-consuming lawsuits to the detriment of the people and farmers of Oklahoma if passed. [2] The referendum failed, with the vote going 58-42% against the amendment.

Text

"To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the rights of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or enact any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014."

Overview

The amendment would prevent the Oklahoma Legislature (and, by extension, regulatory agencies whose power derives from the legislature) from enacting new regulations involving farming unless the regulations meet the highest level of examination due to the 'compelling state interest' phrase. It would inhibit many cities and counties from effectively enacting ordinances to prevent water pollution in the agriculture sector by the fact that it would be too expensive for local governments from a litigation standpoint. The legislature would be unable to regulate animal welfare for farm animals such as hogs, pigs and chickens. It is unclear how the amendment would have affected neutral state laws that affected all individuals; presumably, a special carve-out would be applied such that the regulations would be suspended for cases in which they affected "farming and ranching practices".

Supporting arguments

State Question 777 held support from advocacy groups such as the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and the Oklahoma Pork Council. These groups advocated for the bill by saying that it would help them be protected from illegitimate laws and regulations. Specifically, they claim that SQ 777 would protect them from certain ballot initiatives developed and paid for by wealthy animal-rights groups. Another argument is that the bill would shield farmers from restrictive laws, and enable consumers to decide which practices they would support. [3] Supporters also say that SQ 777 would boost food security. Their argument here is that in the status quo, without SQ 777, legislators could at some point pass laws to restrict food production, thereby increasing food insecurity issues in the state. More generally, supporters advocated from a position of generalized distrust of government intervention.

Opposing arguments

Those in opposition to the bill included the Humane Society of the United States, the Oklahoma Food cooperative (which represents small farmers), the Oklahoma Municipal League, and the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes. Arguments against included that SQ 777 would benefit big farming corporations and industrial factory farms by preventing legislation to protect smaller farming groups. If a dispute arose between a large farm and a small farm, it is unclear how government could intervene to settle it under SQ 777, with the result being that small farmers would be unable to assert their rights against misconduct from a large neighbor. Another argument is that the bill would harm the environment, specifically through polluting Oklahoma's drinking water without the ability to protect it from agricultural chemical runoff and animal waste disposal. Opponents also argue that the bill would harm the ability for Oklahoma's elected legislators to secure viable standards and regulations on protecting the environment, food production, and even protection against animal cruelty. Another argument from the opposition is that SQ 777 would harm Oklahoman democracy; that in general, specific classes of activity are not deemed immune from regulation from democratically elected legislators, and that Oklahoma's existing regulation was already extremely lenient and hands-off for Oklahoma business. [4]

Key players

Mark Yates from the Oklahoma Farm Bureau defended the Right to Farm Bill against these claims from opponents of the bill by pointing to the failure of regulations in other states. He referenced Proposition 2, an act by Californian legislators to try to increase the space needed for chickens bred from commercial egg production. Yates argued this legislation was something that a law that caused more problems than anything, by decreasing overall production while increasing production costs. As a result, eggs produced in California were more expensive. However, Brian Ted Jones of Oklahoma's Kirkpatrick Foundation argued that his was a bit misleading. Jones pointed out "the price of eggs rose dramatically throughout the country that year, largely because of the unprecedented devastation to poultry flocks caused by a severe outbreak of avian flu". [5] Notable opponents included the former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who cited many of these same reasons previously indicated as his rationale for opposing SQ 777 Right to Farm Bill.

Results

The amendment was ultimately rejected by the voters with 60.3% against the bill on November 8, 2016. Additionally, State Question 780 passed, which reclassified certain drug possession crimes involving small amounts of material from felonies to misdemeanors. The results - generally perceived as a "liberal" victory in a conservative state - showed that "there is still a strand of Heartland populism that is skeptical of Big Agra" by David Blatt of the Oklahoma Policy Institute. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agricultural Adjustment Act</span> United States federal law of the New Deal era

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a United States federal law of the New Deal era designed to boost agricultural prices by reducing surpluses. The government bought livestock for slaughter and paid farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land. The money for these subsidies was generated through an exclusive tax on companies which processed farm products. The Act created a new agency, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, also called "AAA" (1933-1942), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to oversee the distribution of the subsidies. The Agriculture Marketing Act, which established the Federal Farm Board in 1929, was seen as an important precursor to this act. The AAA, along with other New Deal programs, represented the federal government's first substantial effort to address economic welfare in the United States.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Puerto Rico</span> Constitution of the commonwealth and unincorporated U.S. territory

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is the controlling government document of Puerto Rico. It is composed of nine articles detailing the structure of the government as well as the function of several of its institutions. The document also contains an extensive and specific bill of rights. It was ratified by Puerto Rico's electorate in a referendum on March 3, 1952, and on July 25, 1952, Governor Luis Muñoz Marín proclaimed that the constitution was in effect. July 25 is known as Constitution Day.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Tennessee</span> Basic governing document of the U.S. state of Tennessee

The Constitution of the State of Tennessee defines the form, structure, activities, character, and fundamental rules of the U.S. State of Tennessee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agricultural produce market committee</span> Board to protext farmers from large retailers in India

An Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) is a marketing board established by state governments in India to ensure farmers are safeguarded from exploitation by large retailers, as well as ensuring the farm to retail price spread does not reach excessively high levels. APMCs are regulated by states through their adoption of a Agriculture Produce Marketing Regulation (APMR) Act.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1992 is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland which specified that the protection of the right to life of the unborn did not limit the right to distribute information about services in foreign countries. It was one of three referendums on abortion held on 25 November 1992. It was approved and signed into law on 23 December of the same year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Legislature</span> Legislative branch of the state government of Oklahoma

The Legislature of the State of Oklahoma is the state legislative branch of the U.S. state of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma House of Representatives and Oklahoma Senate are the two houses that make up the bicameral state legislature. There are 101 state representatives, each serving a two-year term, and 48 state senators, who serve four-year terms that are staggered so only half of the Oklahoma Senate districts are eligible in each election cycle. Legislators are elected directly by the people from single member districts of equal population. The Oklahoma Legislature meets annually in the Oklahoma State Capitol in Oklahoma City.

Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that New York State could regulate the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

<i>In re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995</i>

In re Article 26 and the Regulation of Information Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland after a referral by President Mary Robinson under Article 26 of the Constitution of Ireland. This is a procedure whereby the constitutionality of a bill is considered by the Supreme Court before it is signed into law, similar to the concept of a facial challenge in the United States. If the Court finds that it is constitutional, it may not later be challenged after its enactment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States farm bill</span> Primary agricultural and food policy instrument of the federal government

In the United States, the farm bill is comprehensive omnibus bill that is the primary agricultural and food policy instrument of the federal government. Congress typically passes a new farm bill every five to six years.

The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2001 was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Ireland to tighten the constitutional ban on abortion. It would have removed the threat of suicide as a grounds for legal abortion in the state, as well as introducing new penalties for anyone performing an abortion, by giving constitutional status to legislation proposed to be enacted after the amendment. It was narrowly rejected in a referendum held on 6 March 2002, with 50.4% against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 2</span> California ballot proposition

Proposition 2 was a California ballot proposition in that state's general election on November 4, 2008. It passed with 63% of the votes in favor and 37% against. Submitted to the Secretary of State as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, the initiative's name was amended to officially be known as the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative. The official title of the statute enacted by the proposition is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Right-to-farm laws</span>

Right to farm laws in the United States deny nuisance lawsuits against farmers who use accepted and standard farming practices and have been in prior operation even if these practices harm or bother adjacent property owners or the general public. Agricultural nuisances may include noise, odors, visual clutter and dangerous structures. All 50 states have some form of Right to Farm law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Anderson (Minnesota state representative)</span> American politician

Paul H. Anderson is an American politician serving in the Minnesota House of Representatives since 2009. A member of the Republican Party of Minnesota, Anderson represents District 12A in central Minnesota, which includes the cities of Morris and Benson and portions of Big Stone, Pope, Stearns, Stevens and Swift Counties.

Ag-gag laws are anti-whistleblower laws that apply within the agriculture industry. Popularized by Mark Bittman in an April 2011 The New York Times column, the term ag-gag typically refers to state laws in the United States of America that forbid undercover filming or photography of activity on farms without the consent of their owner—particularly targeting whistleblowers of animal rights abuses at these facilities. Although these laws originated in the United States, they have also begun to appear elsewhere, such as in Australia and Canada.

Genetic engineering in Hawaii is a hotly contested political topic. The Hawaiian islands counties of Kauai, Hawaii and Maui passed or considered laws restricting the practice within their borders due to concerns about the health, the environment and impacts on conventional and organic agriculture.

An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals, more commonly known as Question 3, was the third initiative on the 2016 Massachusetts ballot. The measure requires Massachusetts farmers to give chickens, pigs, and calves enough room to turn around, stand up, lie down, and fully extend their limbs. It also prohibits the sale of eggs or meat from animals raised in conditions that did not meet these standards.

Animal welfare and rights in Switzerland is about the treatment of and laws concerning non-human animals in Switzerland. Switzerland has high levels of animal welfare protection by international standards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 12</span> Ballot measure in California requiring certain space requirements for farm animals

Proposition 12 was a California ballot proposition in that state's general election on November 6, 2018. The measure was self-titled the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act. The measure passed, by a vote of about 63% Yes to 37% No.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 Kansas abortion referendum</span> Abortion ballot measure

The 2022 Kansas abortion referendum was a rejected legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the Kansas Constitution that appeared on the ballot on August 2, 2022, alongside primary elections for statewide offices, with early voting from July 13. If enacted, the amendment would have declared that the Kansas Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, given the Kansas state government power to prosecute individuals involved in abortions, and further declared that the Kansas government is not required to fund abortions.

References

  1. "Oklahoma Election Results November 08, 2016". results.okelections.us. Oklahoma State Election Board. Retrieved January 9, 2024.
  2. "State Question 777: Constitutional Limits on Regulation of Agriculture." Oklahoma Policy Institute. OKpolicy.org, 25 Oct. 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
  3. Charles, Michelle, Stillwater News Press. "Oklahoma Farm Bureau Backing Right to Farm." Stillwater News Press. N.p., 14 July 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
  4. "RIGHT TO FARM OR RIGHT TO HARM?" SQ777 | Kirkpatrick Foundation. Kirkpatrick Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
  5. "Claims That SQ 777 Will Boost Food Security Are Hard to Swallow." Oklahoma Policy Institute. OKPolicy.org, 25 Oct. 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
  6. Cobb, Russell (March 2020). The Great Oklahoma Swindle, Race, Religion, and Lies in America's Weirdest State. p. 38. ISBN   9781496220035.