Humane Society

In this Associated Press story, California state senator Dean Florez, who represents the Central Valley, compares the passage of last November's Prop 2 -- which imposed new regulations on farm animal confinement -- to the political earthquake of Prop 13. At least the agricultural version of Prop 13.

Florez and the story tout the passage of several animal protection measures by the legislature this year as a reaction to Prop 2, which was sponsored by the national champion of direct democracy, the Humane Society of the United States. Skeptical voices in the story suggest these measures are codifying changes in animal management that the agricultural industry already has embraced.

Animal rights groups, in particular the Humane Society of United States, have a second-to-none record of winning ballot initiatives. In Ohio, such groups are considering an initiative to ban dog auctions.

What's the problem with dog auctions? As the Columbus Dispatch explains, animal rights groups claim dog breeders keep dogs in terrible conditions and force dogs to have too many puppies. Your blogger is not a dog guy (I still have nightmares from my early childhood, when I lived in Hong Kong and was periodically chased by wild dogs that had been abandoned to the streets), but he predicts: dogs make good copy and TV, so this is one ballot initiative that would have no troubles attracting media attention.

In California last year, the rights of a small minority were the target of a ballot initiative campaign. The minority rallied, but its campaign was overwhelmed by a better-run campaign on the yes side, and by what the minority saw as bias and misinformation.

I'm not talking about Prop 8. The minority in this case is California's farmers, who were on the losing side of Prop 2, an initiative backed by the Humane Society to impose limits on how chickens and other animals can be confined. The farmers are furious at the result, and they're gathering together to figure out how to combat misinformation and get out the word that farmers are just like everybody else. Details on a recent post-Prop 2 meeting of farmers are in this Visalia Times-Delta editorial.

This piece on the California initiative on farm animal confinement had been anticipated -- the Humane Society clearly gave the writer, Maggie Jones, considerable access -- but there's nothing new in it. It does provide a fair look at both sides of the issue, with some historical context.

The Humane Society doesn't just protect animals. They're the leading defender of the initiative process. And as the blog Animals & Politics, by Humane Society Legislative Fund president Michael Markarian (above) makes clear, Arizona is about to feel the full weight of the society. Specifically, the Humane Society is exercised about Prop 105, the newest in a series of super-majority requirement for ballot initiatives that is sweeping the nation. Florida implemented a requirement that 60 percent of voters approve a ballot initiative. And Utah, trying to fight off the Humane Society, implemented one that only covers measures on wildlife protection.

But the Arizona ballot initiative goes further, by requiring that a majority of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS approve an initiative before it takes effect. Just winning among people who show up would not be enough.

In California, supporters of Prop 2, a Humane Society-backed ballot initiative to regulate how farm animals are confined, appear to have made a little bit of legal history. Earlier this month, they essentially sued themselves in an attempt to change their own ballot argument in favor of the measure.

The lawsuit, which is attached below, makes for odd reading. The language of the lawsuit sounds almost apologetic, asking for a "very minor change" (italics not mine) in both the ballot argument and the rebuttal to the "no" side's argument. Technically, the supporters are suing the Secretary of State, but they're suing the Secretary of State to change something they themselves wrote. The reason for the filing? To avoid voter confusion, the lawsuit says.

It appears that Humane Society folks thought they had lined up support for Prop 2 from some leading Catholics, but got pushback from church officials when the ballot argument said that Catholic leaders had endorsed the measure. The church itself has not. One Catholic group that endorsed the measure, the California Veterinary Medicine Association, also seems to be unhappy with one part of the ballot argument.

The Humane Society of the United States has a stronger record of success in ballot measures than any other interest group in the country. But this suggests that their California campaign is having some hiccups.

Today's Sacramento Bee has an interesting overview of Prop 2, the California ballot initiative limiting how farm animals may be confined. If enacted, California farms effectively would be prohibited from raising hens in cages.

Former farm boy and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof backs Prop 2, the California initiative to create a little more space for farm animals. He also writes about killing geese. Referring to the November vote on the measure, Kristof calls it "the most importnat election this November you've never heard of."

Capitol Weekly examines how the use of the Internet by the proponents of Prop 2, the Humane Society's California ballot initiative to change the rules of farm animal confinement, show the way to the future of initiative politics. Joe Trippi is in the middle of this campaign.