Press "Enter" to skip to content

Groups on both sides spar over Amendment 1

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The public vote on Amendment 1 is less than 8 weeks out. Campaigns on both sides of the “right to farm” measure have gained traction, with similar messaging to support their cause.

Congressman Luetkemeyer
Congressman Luetkemeyer

The Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB) held an event on June 4 where Congressman Blaine Leutkemeyer spoke to rally supporters. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was mentioned several times at the event because of their involvement of Prop B in 2010 to limit dog breeding in the state.

Agricultural groups, including the Missouri Corn Growers Association and the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, have been very united in support of the issue, staying on message that Amendment 1 protects Missouri’s agrarian interests from outside groups. The Missouri Republican Party also supports the amendment, but supporters contend that it is a bipartisan issue.

“You have a lot of people who may be well-intentioned and may think they know the right solution to what they believe or perceive is the problem,” Leutkemeyer said at the MFB event. “But the consequences of actions are greater than the problem they’re trying to solve.”

MFB has been actively campaigning for the measure since not long after it was passed at the end of the 2013 regular session. They sent mailers out to members even before the ballot date was set, created YouTube videos, and are currently holding a snapshot contest for supporters to submit pictures of amendment bumper stickers in use.

HSUS released a statement on Wednesday lending opposition to the amendment, stating that the amendment is unnecessary because of a former right to farm legislation in 1982 and that the amendment would allow “big agribusiness to write its own rules with no oversight.”

“If passed,” the statement read, “foreign corporations will have absolute authority over Missourians’ farm land and any animals on it indefinitely.”

Former Democratic Missouri Lt. Gov. Joe Maxwell now works for HSUS as their vice president of outreach and engagement and has been outspoken about Amendment 1.

“This initiative isn’t about protecting Missouri’s family farmers. It is about protecting large agricultural interests. They want constitutional protection like no other company has in the state of Missouri or in this country,” Maxwell said.  “They want protection to do what they want on our countryside, and to animals, to farmers, and to the environment.”

Former Lt. Gov. Maxwell
Former Lt. Gov. Maxwell

Rep. Casey Guernsey, R-Bethany, previously told the Missouri Times that the amendment is a measure to fight back special interests who may want to alter agribusiness in Missouri. He cited successful changes in states such as California and Indiana that agriculture supporters do not want to see in Missouri. Guernsey shared with the Missouri Times also that dairy farms are leaving California because of the new policies.

A campaign started by former Sen. Wes Shoemyer in opposition has taken foot, receiving a variety of media attention. Their logo of “Vote NO” inside the shape of a barn sits to the left of a slideshow saying the amendment does not help family farms, but helps corporations and foreign investors – China in particular.

Another active animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), also has strong words of opposition for Amendment 1, but it is uncertain how active they may be in the state over the next 8 weeks.

“This proposed amendment is apparently the legislature’s attempt to constitutionalize a right to abuse animals on farms and destroy the environment,” Jared Goodman, PETA Foundation’s Director of Animal Law, told the Missouri Times. “The public is demanding more accountability, not less.”

“Amendment 1 will also result in costly litigation over what farming practices are allowed,” yesterday’s HSUS statement continued. “If someone wants to raise goats for meat in some of Missouri’s towns and communities, he could claim it’s his constitutional right and sue to overturn local zoning restrictions. Only the courts will decide if the “Right to Farm” includes raising dogs, cats, horses, or other animals for food. The only thing protected by Amendment 1 will be more business for lawyers.”

The fiscal note on the HJR11 last year estimated the only cost to be in litigation. One lone state committeemen for the Missouri Republican Party cited litigation that the amendment would cause as a reason to oppose it during the Party’s vote as to whether or not to endorse the amendment earlier this year. Committeeman John Sanderford, a Kansas City attorney, told the Missouri Times he “was concerned that the language in the amendment was very broad.” His original comments were regarding the potential for litigation to occur when a “farmer” tries to grow marijuana with the amendment as their justification.

“The groups with the money to hire the big time attorneys will be the ones filing the briefs and framing the arguments when the Courts, possibly Federal courts, get around to defining the amendment,” Sanderford told the Missouri Times in an email. “My reference to marijuana had everything to do with my concern that we really don’t know what the amendment means, and almost nothing to do with marijuana.”

Agriculture is currently the largest industry in the state of Missouri. Missouri is second to only Texas in cattle production and ranks in the top 10 states in the country for several other livestock and crop products.