California Proposition 2, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2008)

California Proposition 2
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Treatment of animals
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 2 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 4, 2008. It was approved.

A "yes" voted supported this ballot measure to prohibit the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

A "no" voted opposed this ballot measure to prohibit the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

Overview

The measure prohibited the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Proposition 2 took effect on January 1, 2015, which provided farmers with six years to make the required changes.

Election results

California Proposition 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		8,203,769	63.42%
No		4,731,738	36.58%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Map

The following map illustrates the election results of the ballot initiative:

Aftermath

Cramer v. Harris

On February 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 2. Opponents of the measure claimed it did not specify the exact dimensions of housing for chickens, was too vague and, therefore, could not be implemented reasonably. The court concluded, "All Proposition 2 requires is that each chicken be able to extend its limbs fully and turn around freely… Because hens have a wing span and a turning radius that can be observed and measured, a person of reasonable intelligence can determine the dimensions of an appropriate confinement that will comply with Proposition 2."

Missouri et al. v. California

Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, and Iowa filed a complaint against Assembly Bill 1437 (AB 1437) in the U.S. District Court for Eastern California on February 3, 2014. AB 1437 applied to standards of Proposition 2 to shelled eggs sold in California. The six states said the bill violated Clause 3, Section 8, Article I, also known as the Commerce Clause, of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs stated that farmers located in their states needed to either increase production costs to meet the proposition’s requirements or forgo selling eggs on the market in California. AB 1437, according to plaintiffs, had a substantial burden on interstate commerce. The District Court for Eastern California dismissed the case on October 2, 2014. Judge Kimberly Mueller concluded that the states did not having standing to challenge the law. She said the states failed to make the case that the measure impacted a "substantial segment of their populations" and affected more than a subset of egg producers.

Missouri et al. v. California was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. On November 17, 2016, the court issued a ruling. The three judges agreed with the district court, saying that the states do not have legal standing to file a complaint against AB 1437. According to the court, the states failed to demonstrate that the law impacted them as states and their residents, rather than just individual egg producers.

On February 15, 2017, Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) of Missouri said he was appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 8, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted hearings.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 2 was as follows:

“

Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Require that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Grant exception for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provide misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

A potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually. A potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.

”

Support

YES! on Prop 2 led the campaign in support of Proposition 2.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)

Parties

• California Democratic Party

Organizations

• The Humane Society of the United States
• California Veterinary Medical Association
• Consumer Federation of America
• Clean Water Action
• Sierra Club
• United Farm Workers
• Union of Concerned Scientists

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Proposition 2 is a moderate measure that stops cruel and inhumane treatment of animals—ending the practice of cramming farm animals into cages so small the animals can’t even turn around or stretch their limbs. Voting YES on Proposition 2 prevents animal cruelty, promotes food safety, supports family farmers, and protects the environment. The agribusiness interests opposing Proposition 2—masquerading as the deceptively named Californians for Safe Food—have a record of duping the public, harming animals, and polluting the environment. Voting YES on Proposition 2 means: . . . Preventing cruelty to animals. It’s simply wrong to confine veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in tiny cages barely larger than their bodies. Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. We wouldn’t force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn’t force farm animals to endure such misery. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment. . . . Improving our health and food safety. We all witnessed the cruel treatment of sick and crippled cows exposed by a Chino slaughter plant investigation this year, prompting authorities to pull meat off school menus and initiate a nationwide recall. Factory farmers have put our health at risk by allowing these terrible abuses, and now are recklessly telling us it’s okay to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane conditions. Cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages fosters the spread of animal diseases that may affect people. Proposition 2 is better for animals—and for us. . . . Supporting family farmers. California family farmers support Proposition 2 because they believe food quality and safety are enhanced by better farming practices. Increasingly, they’re supplying mainstream retailers like Safeway and Burger King. Factory farms cut corners and drive family farmers out of business when they put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health. . . . Protecting air and water and safeguarding the environment. The American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating effects these operations can have on surrounding communities. Factory farms often spread waste on the ground untreated— contaminating our waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. By phasing out the worst animal confinement practices, Proposition 2 helps protect our precious natural resources. That’s why California Clean Water Action and Sierra Club California support Proposition 2. . . . A reasonable and common-sense reform. Proposition 2 provides ample time—until 2015—for factory farmers using these severe confinement methods to shift to more humane practices. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon have passed similar laws. California veterinarians; family farmers; the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the prestigious Pew Commission on animal agriculture; Republican and Democratic elected officials; Episcopal and Methodist church leaders; National Catholic Rural Life Conference; the Consumer Federation of America; and others recommend voting YES on Proposition 2. ”

Opposition

Californians for SAFE Food led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 2.

Opponents

• California Farm Bureau Federation
• United Egg Producers

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Proposition 2 is UNNECESSARY, RISKY, and EXTREME. It is sponsored by a well-funded Washington, D.C.-based special interest group and will have dangerous, expensive consequences for California. Proposition 2 puts Californians AT RISK for AVIAN INFLUENZA, Salmonella contamination, and other diseases. California farmers help protect Californians against Avian Influenza, or BIRD FLU, and other diseases by using modern housing systems to raise egg-laying hens—housing systems effectively banned by Proposition 2. It is so EXTREME that it also effectively bans “cage-free” eggs, forcing hens outdoors for most of the day. “This outdoor access enhances the likelihood that such poultry will have direct contact with migratory and wild birds as well as other animals, substantially increasing the risk of Avian Influenza, Exotic Newcastle Disease, and other diseases.” — UNITED STATES ANIMAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION According to the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, transmission of bird flu from poultry to humans results in “very severe disease” and “could mark the start of a global outbreak (pandemic).” Nearly all California farmers follow the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s California Egg Quality Assurance Program, assuring the highest standards for FOOD SAFETY and PUBLIC HEALTH. This program has resulted in the virtual elimination of food-borne illness, like Salmonella, in California eggs. In fact, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, no case of Salmonella has been traced to California egg production in nearly a decade. Eggs produced and trucked in from out-of-state and Mexico are not required to meet the same high food safety standards as California eggs. Proposition 2 HARMS California CONSUMERS who rely on safe, fresh, affordable California-raised eggs for their families. Consumers will be forced to buy eggs trucked in thousands of miles away from out-of-state and MEXICO. California family farmers will be driven out of business. It will COST thousands of JOBS, and more than $600 MILLION in ECONOMIC ACTIVITY will be LOST, hurting the state and local economies. California eggs will be MORE EXPENSIVE. With gasoline, housing, and basic grocery costs at an all-time high, Californians can’t afford to pay higher prices for food. Proposition 2 is misleading because it refers to treatment of several farm animals, but it actually addresses housing methods. The measure primarily affects egg-laying hens. Most food safety officials, public health experts, veterinarians, and animal welfare advocates support modern housing systems, which provide the best possible care for hens while also protecting them, and humans alike, from injury, illness, and disease. Proposition 2 is UNNECESSARY because California law ALREADY PROTECTS animal welfare and safety. Proposition 2: • INCREASES THE RISK OF BIRD FLU • INCREASES THE RISK OF FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS, LIKE SALMONELLA • INCREASES GROCERY PRICES OF CALIFORNIA EGGS • COSTS THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIA JOBS AND PUTS FARMERS OUT OF BUSINESS • COSTS CALIFORNIA $615 MILLION IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY • HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT BY CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING Family farmers, veterinarians, public health and food safety experts, and consumers urge a “NO” vote on Proposition 2. VOTE NO ON PROP. 2. KEEP CALIFORNIA EGGS SAFE. AFFORDABLE. FRESH. LOCAL. ”

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	Field Poll	63%	24%	13%
October 18-28	Field Poll	60%	27%	13%

Media editorials

Support

• The San Diego Union-Tribune
• The New York Times
• The San Jose Mercury News
• The Santa Cruz Sentinel
• The Paradise Post
• The Los Angeles Daily News
• The Whittier Daily News
• The San Francisco Bay Guardian

Opposition

• The Los Angeles Times
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The Press Telegram
• Colusa County Sun-Herald
• North County Times
• Long Beach Press-Telegram
• Redding Record Searchlight
• The Madera Tribune
• Napa Valley Register
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat
• The Record
• Chico Enterprise Record
• The Press-Enterprise
• The Signal Santa Clarita Valley
• Daily Breeze<ref>Daily Breeze, "Daily Breeze election endorsements"</ref>
• The Reporter

Path to the ballot

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2008, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required.

On February 28, 2008, supporters of the measure submitted 790,486 signatures for the ballot initiative. In April 2008, the secretary of state announced that the signatures were sufficient for the measure to appear on the ballot.

The signatures were gathered by a combination of volunteers throughout the state and paid signature gatherers employed by PCI Consultants, Inc. at a cost of $416,756.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Animal treatment laws on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• November 4, 2008, General Election Voter Guide