Oklahoma Right to Farm, State Question 777 (2016)
| Right to Farm State Question 777 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Type | Constitutional amendment |
| Origin | Oklahoma Legislature |
| Topic | Food and agriculture on the ballot |
| Status | On the ballot |
The Oklahoma Right to Farm, State Question 777 is on the November 8, 2016 ballot in Oklahoma as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The measure, upon voter approval, would establish a constitutional guarantee for farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices. It would prohibit the Oklahoma Legislature from passing laws abridging the right of farmers and ranchers "to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices" without a compelling state interest.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The proposed ballot question is as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure adds a new section of law to the State Constitution. It adds Section 38 to Article 2. It protects the rights of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices. It prohibits the Legislature from passing laws that would take away the right to employ agricultural technology and livestock production without a compelling state interest. It provides for interpretation of the section.
SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?[2] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article II, Oklahoma Constitution
The proposed amendment would add a Section 38 to Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. The following text would be added by the proposed measure's approval:[1]
| 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 farmers and ranchers 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 farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.[2] |
Background
| Right-to-farm movement |
|---|
 |
| Amendments |
| ND Measure 3 in 2012 |
| MO Amendment 1 in 2014 |
| Proposals |
| OK Question 777 in 2016 |
North Dakota Measure 3
The first right-to-farm amendment, Measure 3, was approved in North Dakota in 2012. Unlike Missouri Amendment 1 or Oklahoma State Question 777, North Dakota Measure 3 was an initiative. The North Dakota Farm Bureau sponsored the measure.[3] Two-thirds of voters cast ballots in support of the amendment.
Missouri Amendment 1
In August 2014, Missouri became the second state to approve a right-to-farm constitutional amendment, although multiple states had right-to-farm statutes at the time. The measure explicitly guaranteed farmers and ranchers the right to engage in their livelihoods and produce food for others. What exactly that means, however, has been a point of debate in the Missouri agricultural community.[4][5]
Supporters argued that all farmers and ranchers need protections due to out-of-state interests in restricting certain practices. Opponents countered that the amendment would actually provide protections to large corporate and multinational agribusiness, and it would, in fact, make it harder for family farmers and ranchers to protect themselves from business interests. Amendment 1's broadly written language made postulating possible outcomes difficult. Since the measure officially passed, the official definition of "right-to-farm" will likely be decided in the courts.[6]
California Proposition 2
Tom Buchanan, President of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, said his support for a right-to-farm amendment was partially triggered by the approval of California's Proposition 2 in 2008.[7] Over 60 percent of California voters approved Proposition 2, which prohibited 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.[8] The constitutionality of the proposition was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February 2015.[9] Buchanan specifically took issue with Proposition 2's restrictions on cage sizes for egg-laying hens.
Support
The Yes on 777 campaign is leading the support for the initiative.[10]
Supporters
Individuals
- Rep. Leslie Osborn (R-47)
- Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51)
- Rep. Jon Echols (R-90)
- Rep. Scooter Park (R-65)
Organizations
- Oklahoma Farm Bureau[11]
- Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association
- Oklahoma Pork Council
- Oklahoma Agricultural Cooperative Council
- The Poultry Federation
- American Farmers & Ranchers
- Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association
- Oklahoma Grain and Feed Association
- Oklahoma Agribusiness Retailers Association
- Oklahoma Cotton Council
- Oklahoma Sorghum Association
Arguments
Tom Buchanan, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau, said the amendment is necessary to prevent legislation not "friendly to agriculture." He continued:[7]
| “ | The regulatory environment is becoming more restrictive on a daily basis. What we've seen, even in the Oklahoma Legislature every year, is legislation that is not friendly to agriculture.[2] | ” |
Michael Kelsey, executive vice president of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, said:[10]
| “ | Oklahoma farmers and ranchers work hard raising wholesome and high quality food. State Question 777 gives assurance that they can continue their stewardship of the land, animals, crops and ultimately all of us as consumers.[2] | ” |
Roy Lee Lindsey, Jr., executive director of the Oklahoma Pork Council, stated:[10]
| “ | Oklahoma’s hog farmers start every day with a commitment to produce safe food, care for our animals and the environment, and invest in our local communities. Your “yes” vote on SQ777 will protect our opportunity to raise hogs and help feed the world.[2] | ” |
Terry Detrick, president of the American Farmers and Ranchers, said:[10]
| “ | If you eat, you are involved in Agriculture! That’s why AFR is so committed to the passage of SQ#777, ‘Right to Farm’. The constitutionally protected right to engage in modern farming and ranching activities based on sound science is imperative in preparation for the projected 9 billion people by 2050 with less land available on which to do so. The passage of SQ #777 will provide incentive for continued development and research as we incorporate the latest technology to enhance the natural production capabilities of both crops and livestock to insure safe, dependable and affordable food supplies for the future.[2] | ” |
Opposition
The campaign leading opposition against the the initiative is the Oklahoma Stewardship Council, led by former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson.[12]
Opponents
- Oklahoma Stewardship Council
- Oklahoma Municipal League[11]
- Sierra Club
- Humane Society
Arguments
Drew Edmondson, head of the Oklahoma Stewardship Council, argued:[13]
| “ | This measure would not only take away the power of the legislature and municipal governments to regulate agricultural practices, it effectively takes away the power of the people to vote on such changes. The world of industrial agriculture is changing with chemical additives to feed, growth hormones and genetic modifications. I can understand why they want to be free from scrutiny and regulation, but I cannot understand why we should let them.[2] | ” |
Johnson Bridgwater, executive director of the Oklahoma Sierra Club, contended that State Question 777 was designed to protect and empower large agribusinesses. He elaborated:[7]
| “ | This would do nothing but work to protect large corporate farming and ranching interests. It is so vaguely written that it basically gives free reign or the possibility of all types of pollution to go forward without the legal ability to address them.[2] | ” |
Adam Price, an Oklahoma Food Cooperative representative, said:[13]
| “ | I’m actually terrified for what it means for our farmers markets and the small family farmers I work with. Our famers already have the right to farm, they don’t need to run from regulation they have nothing to hide, they already produce foods that are healthy for the land, the animals and the consumers. This question directly benefits large corporations with a goal of just increasing their profits.[2] | ” |
Paul Muegge, former Oklahoma state senator and long-time farmer, argued:
| “ | SQ 777 is bad news for Oklahoma farmers and their communities. We have witnessed the demise of family agriculture as a result of the industrial model of food production. We must support and maintain diverse food systems, for our economic well-being and for our personal health.[2] | ” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Oklahoma Constitution
A simple majority vote was required in both chambers of the Oklahoma Legislature in order to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. On April 21, 2015, the Oklahoma Senate passed the measure, with 39 senators voting in favor and six voting against. The Oklahoma House of Representatives approved the measure on April 29, 2015, with 85 representatives in favor and seven against. On April 30, 2015, it was filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State.[1]
State profile
Oklahoma's population in 2014 was 3,878,051 according to the United States Census Bureau. This estimate represented a 3.4 percent increase from the bureau's 2010 estimate. The state's population per square mile was 54.7 in 2010, falling below the national average of 87.4.
Oklahoma experienced a 3.5 percent increase in total employment from 2011 to 2012, exceeding the 2.2 percent increase at the national level during the same period.[14]
Demographics
Oklahoma fell below the national average for residents who attained at least bachelor's degrees, according to data from 2009 to 2013. The United States Census Bureau found that 23.5 percent of Oklahoma residents aged 25 years and older attained bachelor's degrees, compared to 28.8 percent at the national level.
The median household income in Oklahoma was $45,339 between 2009 and 2013, compared to a $53,046 national median income. Census information showed a 16.8 percent poverty rate in Oklahoma during the study period, compared to a 14.5 percent national poverty rate.[14] To expand the boxes below, click [show] on the right side of each box.
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: Each column will add up to 100 percent after removing the "Hispanic or Latino" percentage, although rounding by the Census Bureau may make the total one- or two-tenths off. Read more about race and ethnicity in the Census here.[17]
Related measures
See also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Oklahoma Legislature, "HJR 1012," accessed April 30, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- ↑ AG Week, "ND amendment would protect farming, advocate says," August 5, 2011
- ↑ MyNWMO.com, "Lawmakers send 'right-to-farm' measure to 2014 ballot," May 15, 2013
- ↑ Missouri House of Representatives, "HJR 11," accessed May 26, 2014
- ↑ St. Louis Beacon, "Proposed 'right to farm' constitutional amendment likely to end up in court," June 17, 2013
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Connecticut Post, "Oklahoma voters to decide death penalty, farming questions," May 30, 2015
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Proposition 2 Official Voter Guide," accessed June 1, 2015
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Egg-laying hens in California win another court battle," February 4, 2015
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Yes on 777, "Homepage," accessed December 15, 2015
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Muskogee Phoenix, "Right to Farm" amendment passes House, Senate," April 30, 2015
- ↑ Capital Press, "Group forms to oppose Oklahoma farming proposal," November 18, 2015
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Red Dirt Report, "Concerns raised over State Question 777," November 18, 2015
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 United States Census Bureau, "QuickFacts Beta," accessed March 24, 2015
- ↑ Oklahoma State Election Board, "Elections Results," accessed April 17, 2015
- ↑ The American Presidency Project, "Presidential Elections Data," accessed March 24, 2015
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed April 21, 2014
 |
State of Oklahoma Oklahoma City (capital) |
|---|---|
| Ballot Measures |
List of Oklahoma ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process | |
| Government |
Oklahoma State Constitution | House of Representatives | Senate | Ethics Commission | |
| State executive officers |
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | State Auditor and Inspector | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Commissioner of Agriculture | Director of Wildlife Conservation | Commissioner of Labor | Commissioner of Corporations | |
| School boards |
Oklahoma State Department of Education | Oklahoma school districts | |
| Judiciary |
Oklahoma Supreme Court | Court of Criminal Appeals | Court of Civil Appeals | District Courts | Workers' Compensation | Judicial selection in Oklahoma | |
| Transparency Topics |
Open Records Act | Transparency Checklist | State budget | Open records procedures | Transparency advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations | |
| Divisions |
List of Counties |
List of Cities |
List of School Districts | |
