North Dakota Corporation Farming and Agriculture Prohibition Initiative (1932)

North Dakota Corporation Farming and Agriculture Prohibition Initiative
Election date June 29, 1932
Topic Business regulation and Food and agriculture
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

North Dakota Corporation Farming and Agriculture Prohibition Initiative was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in North Dakota on June 29, 1932. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this initiative to: • prohibit corporations from engaging in the business of farming and agriculture; • prohibit corporations from "acquiring or holding real estate in excess of that necessary for the conduct of their business;" and • transfer corporate-owned real estate that violates the initiative to counties and have counties dispose the real estate at a public auction.

A "no" vote opposed this initiative to prohibit corporations from engaging in farming and agriculture, prohibit corporations from holding real estate "in excess of that necessary for the conduct of their business," and transfer real estate in violation of this initiative to counties for public auctions.

Aftermath

Measure 1 (2016)

See also: North Dakota Corporate Dairy and Swine Farming Referendum, Referred Measure 1 (June 2016)

In 2015, Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) signed Senate Bill 2351 (SB 2351), which was designed to allow domestic corporations to own and operate dairy farms and swine production facilities. The North Dakota Farmers Union organized a veto referendum campaign to place the bill on the ballot for voters to decide. On June 14, 2016, voters rejected SB 2351. The vote to repeal the bill was 99,976 (75.73%), and the vote to uphold the bill was 32,045 (24.27%).

Senate Bill 2233 (1981)

In 1981, Gov. Allen Olson (R) signed Senate Bill 2233 (SB 2233), which amended the ballot initiative. SB 2233 permitted family farm corporations, which allowed for farmers or ranchers to incorporate as long as members had kinship relations, officers and directors were engaged in operating the farm or ranch, and certain limits on outside income were met.

Earlier, in 1974, voters rejected a ballot measure to allow for family farm corporations. The vote was 73,874 (36.23%) to 130,026 (63.77%). In 1968, voters rejected a referendum to allow for corporations composed of 10 shareholders, defined as estates and natural persons, or less. The vote was 53,938 (23.94%) to 171,321 (76.06%).

Asbury Hospital v. Cass County (1945)

In 1945, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the North Dakota Supreme Court, which upheld the initiative as constitutional. Asbury Hospital, based in Minnesota, owned agricultural land in Cass County, North Dakota. Asbury Hospital argued that the initiative violated the immunities clauses, the contract clause, and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment "does not deny to the state power to exclude a foreign corporation from doing business or acquiring or holding property within it."

Election results

North Dakota Corporation Farming and Agriculture Prohibition Initiative
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		114,496	57.13%
No		85,932	42.87%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is as follows:

An Act prohibiting corporation farming and relating to corporations acquiring and holding real estate not necessary in the operation of their business. § 1. That all corporations, both domestic and foreign, except as otherwise provided in this act, are hereby prohibited from engaging in the business of farming or agriculture, and are prohibited from acquiring or holding real estate in excess of that necessary for the conduct of their business, unless the same is acquired in the course of their business by judicial process or operation of law. § 2. That all corporations, both domestic and foreign, who now own or hold real estate, except such as is reasonably necessary in the conduct of their business, shall dispose of the same within ten years from the date that this act takes effect, provided that during said ten year period said corporations may farm and use said real estate for agricultural purposes. § 3. That any corporation, either domestic or foreign, that acquires real estate by judicial process or operation of law here after, except such as is reasonably necessary in the conduct of its business, shall dispose of such real estate within ten years from the date that it is so acquired, provided that during said ten year period it may farm and use same for agricultural purposes. § 4. That nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit cooperative corporations, seventy-five per cent of whose members or stockholders are actual farmers, residing in (on) farms or de pending principally on farming for their livelihood, from acquiring real estate and engaging in cooperative farming or agriculture. § 5. That in case any corporation, either domestic or foreign, violates any provisions of this act and fails within the time fixed by this act to dispose of any real estate after it has acquired title to same, which is not reasonably necessary for the conduct of its business, then title to such real estate shall escheat to the county in which such real estate is situated upon an action instituted by the States Attorney of such county, and such county shall within one year dispose of same at public auction to the highest bidder, and the proceeds of such sale, after all expenses of such procedure shall have been paid, shall be paid to the corporation that formerly owned same. § 6. That all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith are here by repealed.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

The ballot measure was an initiated state statute. Proponents collected signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

See also

1932 Measures

• 1932 Measures
• Agriculture policy on the ballot
• Business regulations on the ballot
• 1932 legislative sessions

North Dakota

• North Dakota ballot measures
• North Dakota ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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