Initiatives and Referendums

Initiative and Referendum Institute v. Walker

Summary:

Several plaintiffs - including six wildlife and animal advocacy groups, several state legislators and politicians, and more than a dozen individuals - bring a facial First Amendment challenge to the Utah constitution supermajority requirement for initiatives related to wildlife management. District court held the plaintiffs had standing, but dismissed the claims on their merit. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Several plaintiffs - including six wildlife and animal advocacy groups, several state legislators and politicians, and more than a dozen individuals - bring a facial First Amendment challenge to the Utah constitution supermajority requirement for initiatives related to wildlife management. District court held the plaintiffs had standing, but dismissed the claims on their merit. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision.

National Audubon Society, Inc. v. Davis

Summary:

In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 4, which restricted the use of certain kinds of traps, specifically steel-jawed leghold traps.  The National Audubon Society, among other groups, challenged the statute, arguing that it was preempted by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA).  The Ninth Circuit held that the statute was preempted by the Endangered Species Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Act.  Contrary to the trapper-plaintiffs contentions, the statute, however, did not violate the Commerce Clause.

In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 4, which restricted the use of certain kinds of traps, specifically steel-jawed leghold traps.  The National Audubon Society, among other groups, challenged the statute, arguing that it was preempted by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA).  The Ninth Circuit held that the statute was preempted by the Endangered Species Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Act.  Contrary to the trapper-plaintiffs contentions, the statute, however, did not violate the Commerce Clause.

Californians for Humane Farms v. Schafer

Summary:

Plaintiff, a nonprofit ballot committee established to sponsor Proposal 2, a State ballot initiative that would result in prohibiting the tethering and confinement of egg laying hens and other farm animals, brought an action against Defendant, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, alleging a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, after Defendant approved a decision by the American Egg Board (the “Egg Board”) to set aside $3 million for a consumer education campaign to educate consumers about current production practices.   The United States District Court, N.D. California granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, direct harm to Plaintiff was likely to occur if the injunction was not granted, and that the public interest would be served by granting the preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff, a nonprofit ballot committee established to sponsor Proposal 2, a State ballot initiative that would result in prohibiting the tethering and confinement of egg laying hens and other farm animals, brought an action against Defendant, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, alleging a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, after Defendant approved a decision by the American Egg Board (the “Egg Board”) to set aside $3 million for a consumer education campaign to educate consumers about current production practices.   The United States District Court, N.D. California granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, direct harm to Plaintiff was likely to occur if the injunction was not granted, and that the public interest would be served by granting the preliminary injunction.

Brief Summary of CAFOs and Animal Welfare Measures

Share

|

Summary:

American agriculture has replaced traditional family farms with the large, industrial-like CAFOs, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, that dominate the industry today. The modern agricultural industry, however, has raised many animal welfare concerns. These concerns, in turn, have given rise to ballot initiatives and state legislation regarding these issues.

American agriculture has replaced traditional family farms with the large, industrial-like CAFOs, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, that dominate the industry today. The modern agricultural industry, however, has raised many animal welfare concerns. These concerns, in turn, have given rise to ballot initiatives and state legislation regarding these issues.

Brief Summary of the Initiative and Referendum Process

Share

|

Summary:

This article gives a quick overview of the initiative and referendum process for states. The general requirements to implement such a ballot proposal as well as the potential concerns are provided.

This article gives a quick overview of the initiative and referendum process for states. The general requirements to implement such a ballot proposal as well as the potential concerns are provided.

Overview of CAFOs and Animal Welfare Measures

Share

|

Summary:

This overview of CAFOs and animal welfare measures introduces CAFOs and the agricultural industry. Briefly, the overview notes the animal welfare, environmental, and human health concerns that have arisen with CAFOs. Finally, the overview notes the legislation and ballot initiatives that have been enacted to address these concerns.

This overview of CAFOs and animal welfare measures introduces CAFOs and the agricultural industry. Briefly, the overview notes the animal welfare, environmental, and human health concerns that have arisen with CAFOs. Finally, the overview notes the legislation and ballot initiatives that have been enacted to address these concerns.