Ohioís constitution is about to be a comfortable home for special interests. Somewhere stuck between freedom of speech and school funding will lounge a group of politically appointed individuals enjoying ultimate authority regarding livestock standards in the state. This is what would happen on Nov. 3 if Ohio Issue 2 is passed.
Issue 2 is a constitutional amendment that would create a ìLivestock Care Standards Board” and give the board extensive power to unilaterally shape policy about how animal agriculture is conducted in Ohio. The board would be made up of political appointees, mostly by the governor, who will be able to supersede any act made by the Department of Agriculture or the state legislature.
Thus, the creation or regulation of livestock policy will turn away from a relatively unbiased entity and away from our representatives who could respond to all interests (especially public) and come to a handful of people with few strings attached. The opportunity for abuse by this group is too strong to be allowed.
Those that respond to amendments with skepticism are completely justified in this case. Installing and protecting the agricultural industry in the state constitution is a complete misuse of that document. In fact, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen OíConner last week called Issue 2 an ìinappropriate use” of the Ohio Constitution.
Not only would this amendment give constitutional protection to a board that would most likely be dominated by farming interests rather than simply animal care experts, but it is also very hard to change. Being an amendment, any change to the structure, power or existence of the board would be reliant on another statewide vote. Additionally, any give-and-take that is typical of democratic policy-making would be completely lost.
The impetus of the campaign for Issue 2 was the passing of Proposition 2 in California last year. This was the law which regulated cage sizes of veal calves, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs. It essentially mandated that those animals had to have room to turn around and lie down, a luxury nonexistent before the law was passed. Some in the Ohio agricultural industries, trying to pre-empt something like this from occurring in our state, pushed the addition of Issue 2 on the ballot in a campaign that was remarkable for its speed and secrecy.
But the supporters of Issue 2 make no secret about why they are pushing the amendment. They say they want to prevent out of state interests like PETA or the Humane Society of the United States from coming to Ohio and imposing their extremist positions regarding animal rights. This is a terrible reason for voting favorably on the issue. If Ohio wants to vote against something similar to Californiaís Proposition 2, they will, but at a future time. That is a completely separate concern.
Instead, we have a classic bait-and-switch strategy: tell the people that Ohio needs to keep livestock policy in the hands of Ohioans, but actually propose something that affects way more than the narrow parameters of pregnant or young animals. The law in California was about giving rights to a few animals; the amendment in Ohio could negatively affect all parts of livestock agriculture ó from animal rights to waste management to consumer health ó all the while protecting special agricultural interests in our constitution from the will of the people or our representatives.
Livestock policy should be made democratically based around the Ohio Department of Agriculture, not by a handful of political appointees heavily influenced by big agricultural interests. If the chicken coop is left open, you can bet the fox will know what to do ó heíll act in his best interest and ignore most others. You can expect similar things when regulatory power is given over to those who are being regulated.
Vote no on Issue 2.
Dan Buckler is a contributor to the Voice. He can be reached for comment at DBuckler10@woster.edu.