California Proposition 2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals (2008)

Voting on the Treatment of Animals Ballot Measures By state By year Not on ballot California Constitution Preamble Articles I • II • III • IV • V • VI VII • VIII • IX • X • XA XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C XX • XXI • XXII XXXIV • XXXV

California Proposition 2, the Standards for Confining Farm Animals, was on the November 4, 2008, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. The measure was approved.

Proposition 2 created a new state statute that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The law was set to go into full effect on January 1, 2015.

Voters in other states had previously voted to eliminate calf and pig crates, but Proposition 2 was the first time voters were asked to eliminate the practice of confining chickens in battery cages.

Aftermath

Missouri v. California

Missouri, along with 12 other states, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block Proposition 2, saying the requirements on chicken confinements to sell eggs in California violated the U.S. Constitution's interstate commerce clause.

Cramer v. Harris

On February 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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, in disagreement, 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."

Election results

California Proposition 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		8,203,769	63.5%
No		4,731,738	36.5%

Turnout: 79.4% of registered

Official results from the California Secretary of State

Impact of Proposition 2

Apply to all eggs sold

In the aftermath of Proposition 2's victory, California state assemblyman Jared Huffman introduced a bill in the state legislature that would require that Prop 2's provisions apply to the source of all eggs sold in the state, regardless of where the eggs are laid.

Idaho, Nevada lure egg farmers

Idaho State Senator Tim Corder, who seeks to lure disaffected California egg farmers to Idaho

As the 2010 session of the Idaho State Legislature opened in January 2010, Tim Corder, a Republican state senator, announced that he was introducing legislation designed "to attract California chicken farmers who might consider relocating" to Idaho. The Idaho legislator and others said that Idaho would give egg farmers who might want to leave California in advance of the time that Proposition 2 goes into full effect in 2015 "friendlier regulations and lower costs."

Officials in Pershing County, Nevada, also visited with poultry farmers from California and "aggressively" encouraging them to pull up stakes and move to Nevada. Economic development officer Kathy Johnson said, "We wanted to let them know that we do have the land, the climate, and we'll work with them. We don't have these stringent regulations that are being imposed now in California."

Debbie Murdock, executive director of the Association of California Egg Farmers, said that moving to a new state would entail significant expenses for egg farmers. Pointing out that there were 20 million hens in California, she said, "It's a huge expense for us to have to move. It's a huge expense for us to change our housing. A move like this, especially in this economic climate, can be very scary."

Clarify guidelines

California's egg farmers were asked for guidelines that carefully define the minimum amount of space they must provide for each hen. Some egg farming associations said that Prop 2 doesn't specifically outlaw all cage systems.

"Turned upside down"

Arnie Riebli, an egg farmer, was the chair of the Association of California Egg Farmers. He was also a member of the Sonoma Valley Healthcare District, but on July 1, 2009, he announced that he was resigning from the health care district's board to focus on his business, saying, "My personal business world has been turned upside down."

J.S. West lawsuit

J.S. West & Co., a commercial egg producer, filed a lawsuit in December 2010 in Fresno County. The lawsuit seeks clarification on exactly what type of housing is acceptable under Proposition 2, which was set to take effect on January 1, 2015. According to the lawsuit, Proposition 2 did not define how much space is required to allow for the behaviors it mentions (lying, sitting down, standing up, turning around, fully extending limbs without touching another animal) and it did not ban cages for hens. Proposition 2's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, however, said that Proposition 2 did ban cages for hens.

The egg industry set 67-87 square inches per hen as its space standard for how much space each hen should have. In 2010, J.S. West opened a colony housing system for hens. This colony housing system was the first such hen housing concept to be built in the United States. It provided 116 square inches per hen. J.S. West asserted that the colony housing system was Proposition 2 compliant. The Humane Society of the United States then said that it wasn't, and that in fact, Proposition 2 was "crystal clear" in its requirement that hens must be housed in "cage-free environments."

Enriched colony systems

J.S. West & Company, an egg-producing company based in Modesto, said in September 2009 that it planned to build a $3.2 million "enriched colony system" for egg-laying hens. The "enriched colony system," according to the company, would give each hen 116 square inches of room. They believed that this new method of chicken farming would satisfy the requirements of Proposition 2.

• In the colonies, 60 laying hens would be housed together in four-foot by 12-foot-off-the-ground enclosures. The enclosures would have perches, scratching areas, claw shortening mats and privacy areas for laying eggs.
• The chicken enclosures would meet the standards of the European Union.
• The Humane Society said that the enclosures would not meet the requirements of Proposition 2.
• The Association of California Egg Farmers said, "We are pleased to see a California farmer step forward to construct new housing that will meet voters' desire to provide egg-laying hens more space."

Missouri et al. v. Harris

Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, and Iowa filed a complaint against Assembly Bill 1435 (AB 1435) in the U.S. District Court for Eastern California on February 3, 2014. AB 1435 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 1435, 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. Harris was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 1435. 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.

Animal confinement practices

In California in 2008, chicken farmers were allowed to raise chickens in what are called "battery cages." These are stacked wire enclosures where 95% of laying hens live out their lives, with six to eight hens to a cage. According to the United Egg Producers, a trade association, about 30 farms in California produce most of the state's annual 5-billion-egg harvest, an average of more than 600,000 hens per farm.

Calves were allowed to be raised in veal crates and sows were allowed to be raised in gestation crates.

Egg production

In 2008, about half the eggs consumed in California were produced outside the state. The provisions of Proposition 2 did not apply to out-of-state egg producers.

Egg production in the state was concentrated in Sonoma County, the Central Valley and Southern California. San Joaquin County produced an estimated 34.5 million dozen eggs in 2007, worth more than $25 million to farmers. Eggs accounted for a little more than 1 percent of California's $32 billion annual farm production. The state's egg industry employed about 3,000 people.

The top ten egg-producing states in the country, ranked by number of active hens, were:

Iowa, 52.6 million laying hens Ohio, 25.6 Indiana, 23.8 Pennsylvania, 20.5 California, 18.3

Texas, 14.1 Florida, 10.4 Nebraska, 9.9 Minnesota, 9.7 Georgia, 9.5

Only three of the top 10 egg-producing states allowed for citizen initiative (California, Florida and Nebraska).

Text of measure

2008 propositions
February 5
Proposition 91 • Proposition 92
Proposition 93 • Proposition 94
Proposition 95 • Proposition 96
Proposition 97
June 3
Proposition 98 • Proposition 99
November 4
Proposition 1A • Proposition 2
Proposition 5 • Proposition 6
Proposition 7 • Proposition 8
Proposition 9 • Proposition 10
Proposition 11 • Proposition 12
Local measures

Title

The ballot title was:

Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.

Summary

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 2 said the measure would:

• 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.

Fiscal impact (official)

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said the measure could result in:

• 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.

Reports and analysis

Other estimates of fiscal impact

A May 2008 study by Promar International that was commissioned by opponents of Proposition 2 estimated the fiscal impact of the measure on the California agriculture industry and consumers. This study concluded:

• 95% of the California egg industry and accompanying economic output would be lost by 2015.
• The total 2008 economic output of the industry was $648 million and 3,561 jobs.
• Egg production costs would increase by 76%.

The University of California Agricultural Issues Center (AIC), which was attached to UC-Davis, issued a July 2008 study about the fiscal impact. That study said:

• The best evidence from a variety of sources suggests that (non-organic) non-cage systems incur costs of production that are at least 20 percent higher than the common cage housing systems. This is due to higher feed costs, higher hen laying mortality, higher direct housing costs, and higher labor costs.
• The study also estimated that the California egg industry would relocate to other states during the 5-year adjustment period.
• The study concluded that the cost to consumers of the cheapest California-produced eggs would increase by at least 25%. However, since the egg industry would have relocated to other states, in the opinion of the study, they concluded that the cost of eggs to California consumers would increase by about 1 cent per egg.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a key supporter of Proposition 2, filed a lawsuit against UC-Davis concerning this study.

Support

"Yes on Prop 2" website banner

Supporters

The YES! on Prop 2 campaign was run by Californians for Humane Farms, sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and other animal protection groups, family farmers, veterinarians and public health professionals.

Joe Ramsey was the official sponsor of the initiative. In addition to humane societies and animal welfare groups, the measure was also backed by the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumer Federation of America, Clean Water Action, the Sierra Club, the United Farm Workers, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Proposition 2 was also endorsed by several politicians, including the California Democratic Party and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Jennifer Fearing was the campaign manager for the "Yes on Prop 2" campaign.

See also: List of Proposition 2 supporters.

Arguments in favor

The following arguments were presented by Proposition 2 supporters:

• Prop 2 prevents cruelty to animals, since it is simply wrong to confine animals in tiny cages barely large enough for their bodies. To emphasize this argument, supporters of Prop 2 released a video on October 14 that according to the Los Angeles Times shows "egg-laying hens crammed into filthy cages, while, nearby, discarded birds are left to die in piles of corpses."
• Prop 2 improves our health and food safety by requiring better conditions for animals.
• Prop 2 supports family farmers, who are driven out of business when factory farms cut corners and put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health.
• Prop 2 protects air and water and safeguards the environment.
• Prop 2 is a reasonable and common-sense reform, which will take effect in 2015 and won't be costly to implement.
• The price of cage-free eggs will go down.
• See California Proposition 2 videos

Donors

$10,499,162 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition 2.

Donors of $100,000 or more were:

Donor	Amount
Humane Society of the United States	$4,070,307
Audrey Steele Burnand	$500,000
Farm Sanctuary Inc.	$314,634
Fund for Animals	$250,000
Anne Wojcicki	$100,000
Leslie L. Alexander	$100,000
Laurie C. McGrath	$100,000

Opposition

"No on Prop 2" website banner

Opponents

Californians for SAFE Food opposed Proposition 2. When the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were turned in, the group released a statement, saying, "This measure is primarily an effort to ban the use of a scientifically proven method for housing egg-laying hens. If implemented it would trigger unintended consequences which are likely to include increased farm costs, decreased in-state production and higher egg prices for California families."

Arguments against

The following arguments were presented by Proposition 2 opponents:

• If it passes, egg supply will go down and egg prices will go up.
• Some egg farmers in California who already practice cage-free chicken farming are fearful that the ballot language is ambiguous and that their farming would also be subject to the provisions of the initiative.
• If chickens are not in cages, they are more vulnerable to attacks by predators, including other chickens;
• Veal crates and gestation crates for pigs are practically non-existent in California or are being voluntarily phased out this year.
• The initiative doesn't require farmers to keep chickens outdoors. Battery cages have been banned in Europe effective 2012. Farmers making the transition there are not providing free range conditions for their chickens but are instead finding other ways to keep chickens in barns.
• If egg companies don't want to deal with the new regulations, they can move to other states or Mexico, taking their benefits to local economies with them.
• According to a study put out by the University of California-Davis, if Prop 2 passes, it is likely that it would force the state's $300 million egg industry to move out of the state or out of business entirely.
• The cost of producing eggs would increase by 20% or more.
• The egg business would have to invest about $500 million on new ways to house chickens.
• Consumers would buy trucked-in eggs from other states and Mexico which would be more exposed to salmonella, and the hens more vulnerable to bird flu.
• According to the National Taxpayers Union, Proposition 2 would place additional regulations on how livestock owners must handle their farm animals, which could increase food costs.
• Los Angeles pundit George Skelton says, "I'm for chicken compassion. But I feel more compassionate about the chicken farmer in this bankrupting economy."
• See California Proposition 2 videos

Donors

$8,973,429 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "no" vote on Proposition 2.

Donors of over $100,000 were:

Donor	Amount
Cal-Maine Foods	$591,211
Rose Acre Farms	$517,256
Moark LLC	$495,883
J.S. West Milling	$340,792
Midwest Poultry Services	$260,000
Foster Poultry Farms	$250,000
Demler Enterprises	$234,200
Pine Hill Egg Ranch	$205,000
United Egg Producers	$185,000
Gemperle Enterprises	$162,473
Fort Recovery Equity	$131,814
Demler Egg Ranch	$131,283
Nucal Foods	$122,390
California Farm Bureau Federation	$119,007
Herbrucks Poultry Ranch	$117,500
Williamette Egg Farms	$100,362

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	Field	63 percent	24 percent	13 percent
September 2008	SurveyUSA	72 percent	10 percent	17 percent
October 18-28	Field	60 percent	27 percent	13 percent

Editorial opinion

"Yes on 2"

• 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

"No on 2"

• The Los Angeles Times
• The San Francisco Chronicle
• The Press Telegram
• Colusa County Sun-Herald
• North County Times
• Hollister Free Lance
• 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
• The Reporter

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

On February 28, 2008, supporters of the measure submitted 790,486 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. This compared to a requirement of 433,971 valid signatures. In early April 2008, the California Secretary of State announced that the signatures were sufficient and the measure would proceed to the November ballot.

Initiative supporters said that their petition drive was invigorated in February when a video of sick cows being abused at a packing plant in Chino, California, surfaced and was widely viewed on the internet.

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

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

• California 2008 ballot propositions
• 2008 ballot measures
• List of California ballot measures
• History of Initiative & Referendum in California

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information:

• Official Voter's Guide to Proposition 2
• PDF of the mailed November 4, 2008 voter guide for Proposition 2
• November 4, 2008 ballot proposition election returns (dead link)
• Proposition 2 in the Smart Voter Guide
• UC Davis Study Citing Economic Effects
• Analysis of Proposition 2 (dead link) from the Institute of Governmental Studies
• Guide to Proposition 2 from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against Proposition 2 from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 2 from Follow The Money

Supporters:

• Yes on 2 -- Californians for Humane Farms
• Campaign expenditures of Californians for Humane Farms
• Large donors to Californians for Humane Farms
• A vote for 20 million animals
• Undercover video said to be from a California egg farm from Chicago group Mercy for Animals

Opponents:

• Californians for SAFE Food
• Study Commissioned by Egg Industry Citing Negative Economic Impact
• The Truth About Proposition 2: Putting Our Food Safety & Public Health At Risk (dead link)
• Large donors to Californians for SAFE Food
• Expenditures of Californians for SAFE Food
• The Libertarian Party of California

Additional reading:

• Sacramento Bee, "Flawed ballot measure is coming home to roost," February 10, 2015
• Proposition 2 mandates cage-free chickens (dead link)
• Opposition groups say Proposition 2 is something to cluck about
• The battle over Proposition 2 (dead link)
• Proposition 2 causes a flap over costs, benefits, Los Angeles Times
• Prop 2: For animals and our humanity
• The Barnyard Strategist