The Missouri legislature is currently debating whether to ask voters to make it more difficult for citizens to protect wildlife within the borders of the Show Me State. The resolution under debate is strikingly similar to a number of bills that have popped up in legislatures around the country, each bill designed to do the same thing: make it all but impossible for ordinary people to exercise their right to give animals a more humane life.
Introduced by state Representative Mike Dethrow, House Joint Resolution 43 (H.J.R. 43) would, if passed by the legislature, ask Missouri voters this fall whether they want to require a "supermajority" to enact any future ballot initiative relating to the "harvesting [of] bird, fish, wildlife, or forestry resources." If passed by voters in the fall, this new constitutional amendment would require two-thirds of Missouri voters to pass any ballot questions designed to protect wildlife.
By contrast, a ballot initiative on healthcare, education, taxes, or the environment would still require a simple majority, which in itself is a difficult standard to reach. Of the 70 initiatives put before the state's voters to date, only 28 have passed by a simple majority. If H.J.R. 43 passes, a wildlife initiative could be defeated by just slightly more than one-third (or 33%) of the voting public.
To put the implications of that in historical context, consider that in 1998, Missouri citizens voted to ban cockfighting with a 63% majority. If a two-thirds majority had been in place for that subject, an important animal welfare reform would have failed and the gruesome and barbaric practice of cockfighting would still be legal. In essence, H.J.R. 43 would make any initiative involving wildlife nearly impossible to pass.
"It is an outrageous attempt to take away voters' rights and prevent the people of Missouri from strengthening animal-protection laws," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. "The HSUS will be working diligently to defeat H.J.R. 43 and to see that the initiative process is open and available to any citizen group, regardless of its beliefs."
The HSUS is not alone in this battle. Animal protection advocates, initiative process supporters, and a slew of other interested parties strongly oppose this resolution.
"Why should wildlife issues be intentionally more difficult to enact by the people than any other issue? The legislature's job is to support the will of the people—not to subvert it," said Julie Janovsky, senior state legislative specialist at The HSUS. "Special interest groups should not be permitted to manipulate or limit the power of the people to enact issues of concern to that interest group. Such a law is unfair to the citizens of Missouri and to their wildlife."
Taking the Initiative
Ballot initiatives are a valuable tool for citizens to stand up to a legislature that may have turned a deaf ear to an important issue. Even bills with massive public support can be quashed by a few powerful people in state houses, including committee chairmen and others in leadership. A chairman can "put a bill in the drawer"—and never bring it out for committee consideration. It happens far too often to "animal bills," which are assigned to committees with legislators from the farming or hunting sector. What's more, even if a legislature passes an animal-friendly bill, the governor can veto it and, in the process, send a strong signal to members of his or her party, often a strong enough signal that a veto override is impossible.
When legislatures and governors prove unresponsive to residents' concerns, the people in 24 states and the District of Columbia can turn to the initiative process to have their say. The initiative process is used to bring issues directly to the people in order to overcome the stranglehold that special interest groups can have on legislative bodies. Used as a last resort when people become frustrated by ineffective or hostile forces in the legislature, the initiative process is an avenue that allows the public to truly make public policy.
In the last decade, The HSUS has spearheaded or played a prominent role in qualifying ballot measures to improve the lives of animals, including a measure in 2002 that Florida voters passed to ban gestation crates for pregnant sows. In others states such as Washington, Utah, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Oregon, the people have likewise spoken out at the ballot box for stronger animal protection, and laws have been enacted as a result.
Not surprisingly, these successes have inspired counter attacks from special interest lobbyists who want to curb the public's ability to restrict the practices of their wealthy clients. The lobbyists can bend the ears of state legislators who, like the public, often have the ability to put ballot questions before the voters. In Florida, for example, the legislature has put a measure on the fall ballot that would require a supermajority—60% of those who cast ballots in this case—to pass any ballot initiative, including ones for animal welfare.
Other state legislatures have also attempted to impose a two-thirds majority vote on animal initiatives, but so far, only Utah has enacted such a measure. Most recently, the Arizona state Senate struck down a bill that would have asked voters to amend the constitution in a way that would limit regulations on local agriculture.
Missouri is also quite familiar with legislative attempts to manipulate the initiative process. Measures similar to H.J.R. 43 have been introduced in the Missouri legislature since 1999, but none has yet made it before the voters.
"It is up to Missouri voters to remind legislators that the wildlife issues should not be held to a different standard than any other issues," says The HSUS's Janovsky. "H.J.R. 43 violates principles of fairness and democracy and diminishes protections for wildlife as well as for the people of Missouri."
