Calves in veal crates. (Image from the Humane Society of the United States.)
Issue 2 is a constitutional amendment that the General Assembly abruptly placed on the ballot earlier this year to be voted on in November. It would create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, a nice enough-sounding board whose sole purpose for existence is to subvert more aggressive laws to protect farm animals. It is misguided and should fail. Unfortunately, with what the Plain Dealer described as Gov. Ted Strickland’s “irresponsibl[e]” endorsement, it will be an uphill battle to defeat this constitutional amendment.
The Columbus Dispatch editorial board, which also opposes the measure, summed up the genesis of this proposed amendment quite well:
The Ohio Constitution is not the appropriate vehicle for determining how the state should regulate the care of livestock.
Yet political interests continue to try to try to amend that venerable document to push their agendas. The agriculture lobby, with a proposed constitutional amendment to create a statewide board to set care standards for livestock, is just the latest.
The Ohio House, with the strong support of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, voted 84-13 on Wednesday to place an issue on the statewide ballot in November that would create a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board. The Senate passed a similar measure yesterday.
Farmers aren’t typically eager for more government regulation, but the proposed board is an attempt to avoid rules they would like even less: a state law banning common practices that confine pigs, chickens, veal calves and other animals in tight spaces.
The whole thing is a picture-perfect example of subverting the Democratic process — under the guise of democracy. The ballot language sounds like it mightn’t be that bad, informing voters that the Board would:
be comprised of thirteen Ohio residents including representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations, food safety experts, veterinarians, consumers, the dean of the agriculture department at an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.
What it doesn’t say is that 10 of the 13 board members are appointed by the governor, which means they could hold whatever view the governor desires that his or her appointees hold. The amendment says nothing about terms of the appointees and, as such, they would serve at the pleasure of the governor and could be replaced at any time. Also, technically, the governor holds 11 of the 13 spots, as the chair of the board is the director of the Agriculture Department, a gubernatorial appointment.
What’s far more problematic, though, is that the business interests promoting this measure placed it not as a statutory change but as a constitutional amendment. Remind you of anything? Like, say, the marriage amendment voters approved as Issue 1 five years ago? The reasons for proponents of the measures wishing to enshrine their vision in Ohio’s Constitution is the same: It makes it harder for changing political opinions to work themselves out in a Democratic, political process.
It is just such a Democratic process that feared the agribusiness industry: Proponents of more humane treatment for animals on factory farms were looking to place a statutory ballot measure on the ballot here in 2010. If the agribusiness industry succeeds in getting voters to approve this vague, no-real-standards constitutional board, then the debate in which Ohio voters would have engaged about the proper, real statutory protections for animal safety in Ohio law would be preempted and shut down.
Such debates over changing policy preferences ought to be free to evolve with the voters and not be cut short by constitutional specifications.
As the Dayton Daily News wrote in its editorial opposing the measure:
Agriculture policy, like everything else, has to evolve. What worked or was acceptable yesterday won’t always be the way of the world. Deciding the rules requires all sides sitting down and looking at bona fide research and negotiating in good faith.
But nobody should be for settling food fights in the constitution.
Well put.
It’s for that reason that even the Ohio League of Women Voters is urging a NO vote on Issue 2.
The Plain Dealer put it more simply back in July:
The General Assembly’s rush to add a “livestock standards” amendment to the Ohio Constitution is as unseemly as it is questionable. Someone at the Statehouse needs to be an adult.
Since no one there would, Ohioans need to be the adults this election and vote NO on Issue 2.
READ MORE: Ohio ACT (Against Constitutional Takeover) – the official No On Issue 2 campaign Web site
Popularity: 19% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
Dear Law Dork:
I’m an Ohioan and also a lawyer. Thanks for writing about this. I am so sickened by Governor’s Strickland’s rallying for this issue. It takes away the rights of Ohio voters to decide basic policy issues like whether an animal should be allowed to turn around in its cage while masquerading as an initiative for livestock care. I would never vote for Strickland again in any capacity since he panders to people who dishonestly mislead Ohioans into amending our state consitution for money. Its sickening.
You bring up some great and very valid points! Just like any ballot issue- sometimes the language can be decieving.
I must disagree with your stance as a whole though. It is important for Ohio citizens to take action against an out of state activist group hiding behind the well known picture of abandoned puppies. Only Ohioan’s know what is right for Ohio agriculture- not an activist group without any knowledge of true farming practices.
I am personally affected by this legislation, and I fear if it is not passed, HSUS will move into Ohio the same way they did California and Michigan and impose their uninformed biases on our citizens.
The members of HSUS are not farmers- who are they to come in to our state and tell us they know better. Who are they to move in here and decide that farming practices established centuries ago are suddnely wrong?
Farmers would never purposely harm their livestock- that’s their product? Their arguments are straight propaganda and story weaving, not what Ohio needs. This is the food we eat! What do they know about that?
You know who would know the most about the food we eat? The producers. The safety officials evaluating it. University professors who spend their daily time exploring issues in animal agriculture. Why don’t we have those people advise us on how to treat and rear animals? Oh wait! That’s exactly who would be appointed to the Livestock care board!
If your problem is with the way the issue is being presented, focus on that. But please do not bash the very people that are producing your food, and trying to make sure it is safe, because I am one of those people. You are a professional, why not try working with the Ohio farm community to help improve something you think is misleading.
Whittney says: “Farmers would never purposely harm their livestock- that’s their product”
Huh?
Oh I’m sorry, farmers only kill these animals about which they care so much. For goodness sake, they care about them almost as much as pets!
Maybe you could visit this site from OSU Ag law and discuss the fallicies you found- and offer suggestions! Sorry for the double post!
http://agvanwert.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/ohio-issue-2-osu-fact-sheet-on-legal-questions/
whittney:
What are you talking about? What “out of state activists” group. If you read my letter you would see that I am an Ohio citizen and I believe in minor reforms for farm animals “in Ohio” just like 63% of the citizens in California who voted “in their state” for Prop 6 and the majority of the legislators in Michigan in their state did through their general assembly. Your “rallying” against “outsiders” unfortunately does not work on me because I don’t allow arguments that play on the reptilian (fear, flight, and fright) part of my brain to hinder the reasoning frontal lobes of my brain. Issue 2 is a scam and an disgraces Ohio’s Constitution.
As a Farm Bureau member I worked on our local committee to find ways to fight and defeat HSUS and PETA at their own game.
My problem with this constitutional amendment is the excessive power it places in the hands of a 13 member group of non-elected bureaucrats.
This issue should not have been a constitutional amendment. The same objective to thwart PETA and HSUS could have been accomplished by including the key words “agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being” in section 900 of the Ohio Revised Code.
The big question for me is, “What did it take to twist the arms of all the members of both the House and Senate to make them take such a draconian measure?” If we change the Constitution every time the wind blows from the wrong direction, what value remains in it? What next? Change the US Constitution to remove free speech and religious freedom?
VOTE NO on ISSUE 2
Dear Law Dork:
Well it looks like Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O’Connor yesterday said that Ohio State Issue 2 is an “inappropriate use” of a constitutional amendment. That is according to an article at http://www.thecourier.com. The article says: “She said Ohio’s Constitution is a ‘much bigger document.’ Decisions on how farm animals should be treated, which is the focus of Issue 2, are policy decisions and best left to lawmakers, she said. ‘Policy needs to evolve as our society changes,’ said O’Connor.
Dear Law Dork,
Thank you. I’d like to ask that Ohioans vote No on Issue 2. Keep Liberty to Farm without government control!
For those who didn’t know or could not attend Monday, October 19 at OSU Campus (Independence Hall) Young Americans for Liberty, Ohio Freedom Alliance, Central Ohio 912 Group and The Ohio Liberty Council
Co-Sponsored an Issue 2 Town Hall Forum.
http://www.blip.tv/file/2746626/ (this is for the video of the Forum)
If you value freedom, it’s worth watching. Mr. Thompson a Constitutional Lawyer did a great job!
Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) has stated that they will continue with their plans to place a ballot initiative to stop certain farming practices on the November 2010 ballot whether Issue 2 passes or fails. This seems odd that proponents for Issue 2 are professing that a yes vote will stop the HSUS and other animal rights groups from doing this very thing. Why don’t we see the HSUS, with its boastful 100 million dollar bank account and 400,000 Ohio supporters, trying to stop passage of Issue 2?
Issue 2 cannot stop these special interest groups from pushing their agenda on Ohio’s farmers. The State Senate passed SJR6 (Issue 2 on 6-25-09, by vote of 32-0) with specific language to “Grant exclusive authority to the Board to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock in this state”. The adjective “exclusive” is necessary so that no competing authority can overrule the board’s authority.
When SJR6 went to the House it was changed. The word “exclusive” was stricken from the resolution and then passed 83-16 (7-13-09), the Senate then approved the word change 31-1 (7-13-09)
(compare at http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bill_keyword.cfm keyword: livestock care) so that it now allows for other authorities, such as other Constitutional amendments, or Federal laws to overrule the Standards Board. Sadly few are aware of this and believe that Issue 2 will really protect them when the reality is that it can’t. The HSUS can easily pass a ballot initiative that will overrule SJR6, and they intend to do so.
What Issue 2 will do is create a new government bureaucracy, which expansion of govt. always means two things, more money and less freedom.
Constitutions are written to ensure the limits of government powers, to protect the common people from the loss of liberty and rights. Issue 2 will do the just the opposite. It will take the right to make management decisions away from the farmer. A “Farmer’s Bill Of Rights” would actually protect farmers from both special interest groups and government entities without the forfeit of personal liberty.
Industry standards should not be controlled by govt. force, but rather by the consumer with their wallets, they may buy from those who produce the product they desire. The producer seeks to please the buyer in both the product and management practices. That’s how a free market should work, without a third party setting the standards. Issue 2 is bad for both the livestock farmers and consumers.
Ohioans and voters in other states who would vote for minor reforms in animal care (allow factory farm animals to turn around in their cages and lie down in their cages) are not “pushing their agenda on Ohio’s farmers.” That is a bunch of propaganda so that intensly industrial farms that are becoming increasingly prevelant is pushing on Ohio voters so they can be exempt from all laws including environmental laws (even though they produce as much pollution or more than other industries e.g., large manure lagoons that leak into waterways). I’m not buying into the big industrial farmers hiding behind a facade of “family farmer” as a voter or a consumer. And and I’m not going to let my rights be restricted to only my consumer power. Vote NO on Issue 2.
Issue 2 is an expansion of State Government that creates unchecked power and new layers of unaccountable bureaucracy over our livestock farmers.
What did it take to twist the arms of all the members of both the House and Senate to make them take such a draconian measure? If we change the Constitution every time the wind blows from the wrong direction, what value remains in it? What next? Change the US Constitution to remove free speech and religious freedom?
The text of issue 2 shows just how rushed the process was and how little thought went into doing the job right. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is not even an imperfect solution. It is not a solution at all. The correct solution is to add the proper language into Ohio Revised Code, a process that would require both the House and Senate to debate and agree on language and the Governor to sign the bill into law.
We are being told that this Board will protect farms from animal rights groups, but what will protect the farmers from the Board, a panel of bureaucrats without accountability?
After reading the proposed resolution, we have several questions regarding Issue 2.
Why did the Ohio Farmers Union decide to oppose issue 2 in their August meeting?
Will we need a license or permit to own and raise livestock in this state?
Will special training and classes be required to obtain the right to raise livestock?
Will someone come to our farm to ensure that we follow the guidelines set forth by this Board, without search warrants or probable cause?
Will we be criminals, and subject to fines/prison if we disagree with the standards set by the Board and fail to comply?
Will these board members be paid? If so, who decides their salary?
How will the actions of this board be funded: by taxpayers or farmers?
How will Board decrees be enforced?
How long will the terms of appointees be? Indefinite or limited?
Why is this Board given “excusive authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state” instead of the farmer?
Why are the members of this Board appointed (10 by Governor) and not voted into their position by the farmers themselves?
What appeal process will be available for those who wish to challenge the standards set by this Board? Will that appeal require a fee also?
Why only three “family farmers”? Won’t they be outnumbered by the other 10 non-farmers?
What effect will the approval of the Board have on organic and all natural farms?
Why is Farm Bureau using fear to provoke the acceptance of this amendment?
Will this Board view livestock as the private property of the farmers with Divine right to govern them as their own conscience directs? Or is livestock the property of the State?
Will this Board establish rules regarding vaccines?
Will we be required to keep updated farm records and submit them annually to this board?
Will the Amish of Ohio be exempt from any rules that contradict their religious beliefs?
Why would we want to establish a government entity to “protect us (farmers) from special interest groups” when the very way these groups achieve their goals is to lobby and control government entities?
Doesn’t this proposed amendment contradict the original FFA Creed. paragraph three, which states:
I believe in leadership from ourselves and respect from others. I believe in my own ability to work efficiently and think clearly, with such knowledge and skill as I can secure, and in the ability of organized farmers to serve our own and public interest in marketing the product of our toil. I believe we can safeguard those rights against practices and policies that are unfair.
If we have sworn the oath of the Pledge Of Allegiance, which professes “Liberty and Justice for all,” since this amendment takes the liberty to raise livestock from an individual farmer and gives it to the direct control of the State, would we be committing hypocrisy according to our spoken oath?
Are horses included under the authority of this Board? If not, shouldn’t they be protected from animal rights groups too and be subject to the standards decreed by this Board?
Is forfeiture of liberty the only way to protect livestock farms in Ohio from animal rights groups? Are there other options available?
In conclusion, we support the opposition to Issue 2 as expressed by the Ohio Farmers Union, The League of Women Voters, Ohio Food and Water Watch, The Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, and all the major newspapers in Ohio.
Of those of you who feel you do not want government in your business of farming. Wait until the Humane Society of the United States finishes with the farmers. At what cost? When they start confiscating farm animals, and horses for so called abuse, then what. Look at what has happened in California. I personally trust our USA farmers more than I do importing beef from a third world country. Remember that HSUS and PETA are animal extremists who believe in no animal use whatsoever and that includes eating meat. That is the goal, using emotion and not logic and science to accomplish their goal. Vote yes on Issue 2.
IAF
“Remember that HSUS and PETA are animal extremists who believe in no animal use whatsoever and that includes eating meat.”
The Humane Society regularly collects pet food to help pet owners who are having trouble affording their pets. Pet food for cats and dogs is generally made of animal flesh (fish and horse). Nice going on using “logic and science” to accomplish your goal of persuading people.