“Oklahoma Right To Farm SQ 777”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The State Question 777 is an amendment that was proposed to the Oklahoma Constitution that voters had the chance to reject or approve during the general election last November. There was lots of controversy surrounding this amendment, supporters referred to State Question 777 as the 'right to farm', while opposition groups referred to it as the 'right to harm'. The amendment states, "To protect agriculture as a vital sector of Oklahoma's economy, which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security and is the foundation and stabilizing force of Oklahoma's economy, the rights of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. The Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Oklahoma to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain, dominance of mineral interests, easements, rights of way or any other property rights. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or enact any statute or ordinance enacted by the Legislature or any political subdivision prior to December 31, 2014". This poorly written amendment leaves room for much of it to be interpreted in different ways, which will cause numerous lawsuits, and does not benefit the people and local farmers of Oklahoma, however it hurts them in many ways.^[1]

Overview

The bill will benefit large corporate farms the most and suppress the majority of small locally owned farms. Oklahomans already have the 'right to farm', if this law were passed it would prevent Legislature from enacting new regulations to protect farming further unless the regulations meet the highest level of examination due to the 'compelling state interest' phrase. It would prohibit many cities and counties from effectively enacting ordinances to prevent water pollution in the agriculture sector by the fact that it would be too expensive for local governments from a litigation standpoint. Legislature will not be able to improve the conditions to a more humane standard for animals such as hogs, pigs and chickens that suffer the most in terms of animal welfare. People that oppose State Question 777 have cause to be concerned over the negative results of this bill such as water quality, animal welfare, destruction of the family farmer, and loss of representative government.

Supporting Arguments

State Question 777 held support from large corporations such as the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, Oklahoma Farm Bureau, and the Oklahoma Pork Council. These groups defend the bill by saying that it would help them be protected from ill-legitimate laws and regulations that could be harmful to their interests. Specifically, they claim that SQ 777 would protect them from certain ballot initiatives developed and paid for by wealthy animal-rights groups. Another argument is that the bill would shield farmers from restrictive laws, and enable the consumers to decide which practices they would support.^[2] Supporters also say that SQ 777 would boost food security. Their argument here is that in the status quo, without SQ 777, legislators could at some point pass laws to restrict food production, thereby increasing food insecurity issues in the state.

Opposing Arguments

Those in opposition to the bill included the Humane Society of the United States, the Oklahoma Food cooperative (which represents small farmers), the Oklahoma Municipal League, and the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes. Of their main arguments, one is that SQ 777 would benefit the big farming corporations and industrial factory farms by preventing new legislation to protect the smaller farming groups. Another argument is that the bill would harm the environment, specifically through polluting Oklahoma's drinking water without the ability to protect it from animal waste disposal, and exploitation of natural resources. Opponents also argue that the bill would harm the ability for Oklahoma's elected legislators to secure viable standards and regulations on protecting the environment, food production, and even protection against animal cruelty. One more argument from the opposition is that SQ 777 would harm Oklahoman democracy.^[3] The bill would provide for "lawful residents" to be able to vote on Oklahoman agriculture legislation. Furthermore, Foreign involvement in Oklahoma Agriculture is large, which would allow these corporations and individuals a right to vote, without actually being legitimate Oklahoma residents. Many individuals deem this unfair, especially Oklahoman small farmers.

Key Players

Mark Yates from the Oklahoma Farm Bureau defended the Right to Farm Bill against these claims from opponents of the bill by pointing to the failure of regulations in other states. He referenced Proposition 2, an act by Californian legislators to try to increase the space needed for chickens bred from commercial egg production. Yates argued this legislation was something that a law that caused more problems than anything, by decreasing overall production while increasing production costs. As a result, eggs produced in California were more expensive. However, Brian Ted Jones of Oklahoma's Kirkpatrick Foundation argued that his was a bit misleading. Jones pointed out "the price of eggs rose dramatically throughout the country that year, largely because of the unprecedented devastation to poultry flocks caused by a severe outbreak of avian flu".^[4] Notable opponents included the former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who cited many of these same reasons previously indicated as his rationale for opposing SQ 777 Right to Farm Bill.

Ballot Results

The amendment was ultimately rejected by the voters with 58.4% against the bill on November 8, 2016. If this law was passed last year it would have had a dramatic effect on the state of Oklahoma and would be very difficult to repeal, needing a majority of both houses of Legislature to remove State Question 777 from the Constitution.

References

1. ^"State Question 777: Constitutional Limits on Regulation of Agriculture." Oklahoma Policy Institute. OKpolicy.org, 25 Oct. 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
2. ^Charles, Michelle, Stillwater News Press. "Oklahoma Farm Bureau Backing Right to Farm." Stillwater News Press. N.p., 14 July 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
3. ^"RIGHT TO FARM OR RIGHT TO HARM?" SQ777 | Kirkpatrick Foundation. Kirkpatrick Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
4. ^"Claims That SQ 777 Will Boost Food Security Are Hard to Swallow." Oklahoma Policy Institute. OKPolicy.org, 25 Oct. 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.