The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 7-0 on June 21 that Initiative 16 – which includes provisions on how long farm animals must live and defines sexual abuse of farm animals -- is unconstitutional.
Initiative 16 was being led by a group named Colorado PAUSE (Protecting Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation).
Had Initiative 16 been enacted, producers would be required to let their farm animals live out at least one-quarter of their natural lifespans. As far as poultry is concerned, Initiative 16 defines the lifespan of chickens at eight years, turkeys at 10 years and ducks at 6 years. That would leave broilers on the farm for 2 years and turkeys 2.5 years.
Related to the sexual abuse measure of Initiative 16, it calls for no intrusion or penetration into the animal with an object or part of a person’s body. That could have meant no more artificial insemination, pregnancy tests, rectal exams, spaying or neutering.
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on Initiative 16 is not only a massive win for the members of Coloradans for Animal Care but the entire state, as well. Initiative 16 was one of the most radical ballot initiatives this state has ever seen. Had it passed, it would have ended animal agriculture, rodeos, dog shows and much more,” Colorado Farm Bureau said in a statement.
“This sends a strong message to the supporters of this measure that multiple subjects and inflammatory language will not be accepted. The coalition will continue to monitor any new initiatives filed by the proponents of this measure. We are hopeful that these kinds of extreme initiatives stop here.”
Justice William Hood delivered the opinion of the court, according to a report from Sandhills Express. Hood wrote in the 20-page opinion ending exemptions for livestock in cruelty statutes and expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" are separate subjects.
"Although the central theme of the initiative is incorporating livestock into the animal cruelty statutes, redefining 'sexual act with an animal' strays into a second subject by addressing the bodily integrity of all animals, not just livestock," Hood wrote. "Because these subjects are not necessarily and properly connected, there is the potential for the very kind of voter surprise against which the single-subject requirement seeks to guard—here, voters might not understand that what is nominally a livestock initiative also affects the care of all animals, or vice versa."
The justices ruled that if proponents of the measure want to continue to pursue a ballot initiative, they must resubmit another initiative and restart the process.
According to multiple media outlets, Gov. Jared Polis opposed Initiative 16, saying he “stands in solidarity with Colorado farmers and ranchers” in opposing the initiative, because it “would hurt Colorado and destroy jobs.”
Opposition to Initiative 16 went beyond Colorado’s borders. The Oklahoma Farm Bureau (OKFB) Legal Foundation donated $5,000 to the Coloradans for Animal Care campaign against Initiative 16.
“Colorado Initiative 16 isn’t just concerning for our neighbors in Colorado; it’s a threat to livestock producers everywhere, including in Oklahoma,” said Rodd Moesel, OKFB president. “The proposed measure would devastate Colorado’s beef, dairy, grain and forage sectors, causing widespread impacts on agricultural economies across the region. Farmers and ranchers lead the way in animal care, so it’s important we stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow producers to protect the critical agriculture industry.”
