Initiatives and Referendums
Displaying 41 - 50 of 88
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-1, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected | |
| MI - Initiatives - Michigan Proposal 3 (mourning dove hunting) |
In 2006, Michigan voters were presented with Proposal 3 that would have legalized the hunting of mourning doves by adding the species to the state game list. The measure was defeated by a 69 to 31 percent vote. |
| ME - Initiatives - Question 2 (bear hunting) | This Maine citizen initiated was defeated in the November 2004 election (only 47% voted "yes"). The question posed to voters asked voters, "Do you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps or dogs, except to protect property, public safety or for research?" Per the Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions summary, the initiated bill was to prohibit the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, the use of a dog to hunt or pursue bear and the use or setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear except under certain circumstances (such as by state or federal employees to kill or capture depredating bears or by commercial timber operators). |
| MA - Initiatives - Question 3, Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment (2016) | Massachusetts Question 3 is a law proposed by initiative petition and appears on the 2016 ballot. This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals. |
| MA - Initiatives - Question 3, 2000 (dog racing) | This Massachusetts ballot question asked voters in 2000 whether they wanted to prohibit in Massachusetts any dog racing where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the State Racing Commission. The question failed with 49% voting "yes" and 51% voting "no" on the question. |
| MA - Initiatives - 2008 Question 3 (dog racing) | This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. All existing parts of the chapter of the state's General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs. These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The measure was approved by a margin of 65% to 35 %. |
| LA - Initiatives - Ballot Issue 1 (right to hunt) | This Louisiana ballot measure amended the state constitution after it was resoundingly approved in November of 2004 (by 81% of voters). The measure was initiated by the state legislature in Senate Bill 2 and was sent to the electors of the state for a vote. The measure on the official ballot stated that citizens were to vote FOR or AGAINST to amend the Constitution of Louisiana with the following proposition: "To guarantee the right of every citizen to hunt, fish and trap, subject to regulation, restriction, or prohibition as provided by law. (Adds Article I, 14 Section 27)." |
| KY - Initiatives - Right to Hunt | This measure proposes to amend the Constitution of Kentucky to create a right to hunt, fish, and harvest nonthreatened species using traditional methods. It passed by 84.5% of the vote. |
| KS - Initiatives - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2016) | |
| Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta | The Iowa Pork Producers Association, an organization that represents Iowa-based industrial pig farmers, filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that California’s Proposition 12 is unconstitutional. Proposition 12, a ballot measure that California voters passed in 2018, mandates that pregnant pigs must be housed with a certain amount of space in order for products made from such livestock to be sold in California. Proposition 12 also bans the sale of pork meat from producers that do not comply with the housing requirements, including sales from out of state producers. Plaintiff contended that Proposition 12 violates the dormant commerce clause in that it discriminates against interstate commerce, directly regulates extraterritorial conduct, and that even if it regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, the burden imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court looked to the purpose of Proposition 12, which is intended to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and associated negative fiscal impacts on the state of California. The court found that this purpose is not discriminatory, and that there is no hint of economic protectionism. The court also found that there is no discriminatory effect, as the statute treats all producers the same by imposing the same requirements. The court also denied the extraterritoriality claim because Proposition 12 is not a price control or price affirmation statute and, therefore, does not directly regulate extraterritorial economic conduct. The court also found that the burden imposed on commerce was not clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court’s precedent states that even if producers will need to adopt a more costly method of production to comply with Proposition 12, such increased costs do not constitute a substantial burden on interstate commerce, and higher costs to consumers do not qualify as a substantial burden on interstate commerce. The district court dismissed the case, holding that plaintiffs failed to raise serious questions as to the merits of the claims. |