Oklahomans will decide on Nov. 8 whether to become the third state with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to farm and ranch, a campaign whose chief target is animal-rights groups. Proponents have a 3-to-1 advantage in fundraising, says StateImpact Oklahoma, adding, “The issue has attracted more direct donations than any other ballot question, suggesting right-to-farm is high-stakes Oklahoma politics.”
The Oklahoma City Council, in the state’s largest city, approved a resolution urging residents to oppose the right-to-farm initiative, Question 777 on the general election ballot, said the Oklahoman newspaper. Council member Mark Stonecipher said the amendment would adversely affect city access to safe drinking water. Oklahoma City draws on reservoirs in northwestern and southeastern Oklahoma for much of its water. The council members voting against the resolution said the council shouldn’t tell residents how to vote.
The Oklahoma Municipal League opposes Question 777. On its website, the League says city leaders worry that, under the amendment’s requirement that the legislature show “compelling state interest” for laws regulating agriculture, “animal and chemical waste may damage drinking supplies … and that ‘farms’ may pop up in residential areas, placing animal producers right next to families and residential communities.”
The Oklahoma secretary of state’s office says “compelling state interest” means “a clearly identified state interest of the highest order.”
In an appeal to the two-thirds of Oklahomans who live in cities and towns, the umbrella group Oklahoma’s Right to Farm says the amendment “protects consumer choice” by letting farmers and ranchers decide which production methods work best for them, ultimately holding down food prices. The amendment would pre-empt animal-rights campaigners and anti-GMO activists.
The right-to-farm group says the amendment would protect farmers and ranchers, whether small farmers or large operators, “from unreasonable government interference and attacks by out-of-state special interests.” Question 777 won’t overturn all ag regulations, says the group: “Farmers will not have a blank check.”
“The ‘yes’ team has raised $816,542 in donations, three times as much as ‘no’ groups’ collective $268,179,” said StateImpact Oklahoma, a collaboration of four public-radio stations. The figures covered campaign financing through June 30, the most recent data on file. Former Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson told StateImpact that he wasn’t surprised or discouraged by the funding gap.
“I expect the ‘yes’ side will spend more than the ‘no’ side, but we have a lot of organizational support I hope will offset that,” said Edmondson.
The largest donor for the right-to-farm amendment was the Oklahoma Pork Council, with $192,393 in contributions, said StateImpact. At $176,030, the social-welfare group Oklahoma Rising led donors to the ‘no’ campaign.
North Dakota voted overwhelmingly to become the first state to adopt a right-to-farm constitutional amendment, in 2012. Missouri voters narrowly approved their amendment in 2014.
On the same day as Oklahoma votes, Massachusetts voters will decide a citizen initiative on confinement space for farm animals. The Humane Society of the United States has been the largest donor, giving $1 million. Massachusetts is a heavily urbanized state with a comparatively small farm sector. The referendum would prohibit the sale of eggs, veal or pork, whether produced in the state or outside of it, from animals not allowed enough room to stand up, lie down, turn around or fully extend their limbs — effectively banning sow crates, veal calf stalls and battery cages for egg-laying hens.
For background on the Oklahoma referendum, click here.