The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20211100.tiffRESOLUTION RE: EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 16 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2021, upon rehearing, the Title Board of the Colorado Secretary of State set the title and submission clause for a citizen's initiative called "Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation", otherwise known as PAUSE, for inclusion on the 2022 General Election ballot, should they receive enough signatures of support; a copy of the record of said rehearing, including the language of Initiative 16, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and WHEREAS, the Title Board's rehearing decision has been appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court in Case Number 2021 SA 125, and WHEREAS, the initiative, as written, demonstrates a severe and damaging lack of education and understanding of animal husbandry practices on which farmers, ranchers, and veterinarians rely to care for their animals by proposing to criminalize procedures, including artificial insemination and aiding in breech birth, and WHEREAS, this initiative, which is yet another attack on rural and agricultural Colorado, will economically damage livestock producers across the state by mandating not only how they care for their livestock, but also how and when they are allowed to sell their livestock, negatively impacting their production chain and cash flow, and WHEREAS, the imposition of such severe restrictions as proposed in the initiative, if passed, will not only economically harm farming and ranching communities and the counties in which they live, but also will put the state at an economic disadvantage as farm, ranch and food processing workers will likely face job elimination as production levels will decrease and jobs may be eliminated due to the economic hardship their businesses will face due to government overreach, interference and overregulation, and WHEREAS, Initiative 16 will significantly increase consumer costs for all meat produced in Colorado, giving neighboring agriculture states an advantage over the Colorado farmer and rancher, and WHEREAS, Initiative 16 will define generally accepted animal practices endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association as animal abuse, opening the door to prosecution for practices such as feeding, sheltering and transportation, which could also impact the health care of companion animals, and C -C CACB,), P%0CZYF), (30CCCKF) O(AI oho / al 2021-1100 BC0055 EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 16 PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the unintended consequences of such an initiative, if passed, could effectively ban agricultural heritage events, including rodeos, county fairs, and horse shows in Weld County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the number one agricultural producing county in the state and number eight in the country opposes Initiative 16 and strongly urges citizens to decline signing the petition to include the Initiative on the 2022 Ballot, as such an initiative will effectively shut down the ranching. and livestock industry in Weld County and the State of Colorado. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 21st day of April, A.D., 2021. ATTEST: � W j8is0 4i Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: puty Clerk to the Board unty Attorney Date of signature: o'/2 -/2I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Stev Moreno, Chair 2021-1100 BC0055 -, vu. . v+ VV - VVVL VLLLLJ Vl VLLatf v4 LLLV LJLLLLV WL 'VLVILLLJV, .LV 11VL L+IJJ L.Li1 L J.&J L11LtL. the attached are true and exact copies of the filed text, fiscal impact summary, motions for rehearing, and the rulings thereon of the Title Board for Proposed Initiative "2021-2022 #16 'Laws Concerning Cruelty to Animals Df4 .......................................................................................................................................................... •IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have unto set my hand. and affixed the Great Seal of the State of Colorado, at the City of Denver this 7' day of April, 2021. SECRETARY OF STATE . . . . . . . . . * . . I . . 2021-1100 2021-2022 #16 - Laws Concerning Cruelty to Animals Original & Final Received 2/22/2021 12:40 p.m. S.Ward Ballot Initiative 2022 Received Legislative Council Staff 2/8/21 10:33 AM Colorado State Ballot Initiative Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation Be it enacted by the people of the state of Colorado: Section 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-9-201, amend (2), (2.9), and (5); add (3.5) as follows: 18-9-201. Definitions As used in this part 2, unless the context otherwise requires: (2) "Animal" means any living thumb -NON -HUMAN creature, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A DOG, A CAT, A HORSE, LIVESTOCK, a certified police working dog, a police working horse, and a service animal as those terms are defined, respectively, in subsections (2.3), (2.9), (2.4), and (4.7) of this section. (2.9) "Livestock" means bovine, camelids, caprine, equine, ovine, porcine, FISH and poultry. (3.5) "NATURAL LIFESPAN" FOR THE FOLLOWING SPECIES SHALL BE EXPLICITLY DEFINED HERE BASED ON STATISTICAL ESTIMATES: A COW LIVES TO 20 YEARS, A CHICKEN LIVES TO 8 YEARS, A TURKEY LIVES TO 10 YEARS, A DUCK LIVES TO 6 YEARS, A PIG LIVES TO 15 YEARS, A SHEEP LIVES TO 15 YEARS, A RABBIT LIVES TO 6 YEARS. (5) "Sexual act with an animal" means an act between a person and an animal involving either direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth, anus, or genitals of the other. SEXUAL ACT WITH AN ANIMAL ALSO INCLUDES ANY INTRUSION OR PENETRATION, HOWEVER SLIGHT, WITH AN OBJECT OR PART OF A PERSON'S BODY INTO AN ANIMAL'S ANUS OR GENITALS. A sexual act with an animal may be proven without allegation or proof of penetration. Nothing in this Subsection (5) shall be construed to prohibit ANY PERSON FROM DISPENSING CARE TO AN ANIMAL IN THE INTEREST OF IMPROVING THAT ANIMAL'S HEALTH . *new text in capitalized letters and text that is being eliminated in strikeout type Section 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-9-201.5, amend (1) and (3) as follows: (1) Nothing in this part 2 shall affect the extermination of undesirable pests as defined in articles 7 AND 1043 of title 35, C.R.S. (2) In case of any conflict between this part 2 or section 35-43-126, C.R.S., and the wildlife statutes of the state, said wildlife statutes shall control. (3) IN CASE OF ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN ANIMAL CARE OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THIS PART 2 SHALL CONTROL. . Section 3. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-9-202, amend (1)(b), (2)(a.5)(VII), and (4); add (1.9) and (2)(a.5)(VIII) as follows: 18-9-202. Cruelty to animals - aggravated cruelty to animals (1) (a) A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, engages in a sexual act with an animal, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal, or causes or procures it to be done, or, having the charge or custody of any animal, fails to provide it with proper food, drink, or protection from the weather consistent with the species, breed, and type of animal involved, or abandons an animal. (b) Any person who intentionally abandons AN ANIMAL commits the offense of cruelty to animals. (1.9) ANY PERSON WHO SLAUGHTERS LIVESTOCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL HUSBANDRY PRACTICES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION SO LONG AS THE ANIMAL HAS LIVED ONE QUARTER OF THEIR NATURAL LIFESPAN BASED ON SPECIES, BREED, AND TYPE OF ANIMAL AND THE ANIMAL IS SLAUGHTERED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE ANIMAL DOES NOT NEEDLESSLY SUFFER. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2)(b) of this section, cruelty to animals, or cruelty to a service animal or certified police working dog or police working horse pursuant to subsection (1.5)(c) of this section, is a class 1 misdemeanor. (a.5) *new text in capitalized letters and text that is being eliminated in strikeout type (VII) This subsection (2)(a.5) does Fret apply to the treatment of pack or draft animals by negligently overdriving, overloading, or overworking them, or the treatment of livestock and other animals used in the farm or ranch production of food, fiber, or other agricultural products '" REGARDLESS OF WHETHER the treatment is in accordance with accepted agricultural animal husbandry practices, the treatment of animals involved in activities regulated pursuant to article 32 of title 44, the tFeatig cnt treatment of animals involved in rodeos, OR the treatment of dogs used for legal hunting activities. wildlife cs, or to including (VIII) THIS SUBSECTION (2)(a.5) DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TREATMENT OF ANY ANIMAL INVOLVED IN RESEARCH IF THE RESEARCH FACILITY IS OPERATING UNDER RULES SET FORTH BY THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WILDLIFE NUISANCES, OR TO STATUTES REGULATING ACTIVITIES CONCERNING WILDLIFE AND PREDATOR CONTROL IN THE STATE, INCLUDING TRAPPING. (4) The short title of this section is "Funky's WILBUR's Law". Section 4. Effective Date: This act takes effect April 1St 2023, and applies to offenses committed on or after said date. Section 5. Severability: If any provision of this Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect any other provision or application of this Act that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. *new text in capitalized letters and text that is being eliminated in strikeout type Ballot Title Setting Board Proposed Initiative 2021-2022 #161 The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: A change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and allowing an exception only for care to improve the animal's health and eliminating the existing exception for animal husbandry practices; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not animal cruelty if done according to acceptable animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing several exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, including exceptions for animal husbandry; and providing that, in case of a conflict, the cruelty to animals statutes supersede statutes concerning animal care. The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and allowing an exception only for care to improve the animal's health and eliminating the existing exception for animal husbandry practices; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not animal cruelty if done according to acceptable animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing several exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, including exceptions for animal husbandry; and providing that, in case of a conflict, the cruelty to animals statutes supersede statutes concerning animal care? Hearing March 17, 2021: Single subject approved; staff draft amended; titles set. Hearing adjourned 12: 38 p. m. 1 Unofficially captioned "Laws Concerning Cruelty to Animals" by legislative staff for tracking purposes. This caption is not part of the titles set by the Board. CDOS Received 3/24/2021 - 12:53 p.m. COLORADO TITLE BOARD In the Matter of: TITLE, BALLOT TITLE & SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR PROPOSED INITIATIVE 2021-2022 #16: "LAWS CONCERNING CRUELTY TO ANIMALS" MOTION FOR REHEARING In accordance with C.R.S. § 1-40-107(1)(a)(I), the Colorado registered electors signed below hereby request a rehearing before the Colorado Title Board (the "Board") with respect to Proposed Initiative 2021-2022 #16, regarding "Laws Concerning Cruelty to Animals" (the "Initiative"). As set forth below, Movants respectfully object to the title, ballot title and submission clause approved by the board based on the following: I. BACKGROUND Following a hearing held March 17, 2021, the Board designated and fixed the following title for the Initiative: A change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and allowing an exception only for care to improve the animal's health and eliminating the existing exception for animal husbandry practices; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not animal cruelty if done according to acceptable animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing several exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, including exceptions for animal husbandry; and providing that, in case of a conflict, the cruelty to animals statutes supersede statutes concerning animal care. Likewise, the ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and allowing an exception only for care to improve the animal's health and eliminating the existing exception for animal husbandry practices; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not animal cruelty if done according to acceptable animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing several exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, including exceptions for animal husbandry; and providing that, in case of a conflict, the cruelty to animals statutes supersede statutes concerning animal care? II. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION A. The Title omits material features of the Initiative, does not fairly and accurately represent the Initiative's true intent and meaning, and may confuse and mislead voters. A measure's title and submission clause must "correctly and fairly express the true intent and meaning" of the measure. See C.R.S. § 1-40-106(3)(b). The title and submission clause should enable the electorate, whether familiar or unfamiliar with the subject matter of a particular proposal, to determine intelligently whether to support or oppose such a proposal. In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2009- 2010 No. 45, 234 P.3d 642, 648 (Cob. 2010). "[A] material omission can create misleading titles." In re Title, Ballot and Submission Clause 1999-2000 #258A, 4 P.3d 1094, 1098 (Cob. 2000). The Title fails to adequately advise voters as to the circumstances under which individuals, including veterinarians, are subject to prosecution under the Initiative. The initiative reads as follows: "Sexual act with an animal" means an act between a person and an animal involving either direct physical contact between the genitals of one and the mouth, anus, or genitals of the other. SEXUAL ACT WITH AN ANIMAL ALSO INCLUDES ANY INTRUSION OR PENETRATION, HOWEVER SLIGHT, WITH AN OBJECT OR PART OF A PERSON'S BODY INTO AN ANIMAL'S ANUS OR GENITALS. A sexual act with an animal may be proven without allegation or proof of penetration. Nothing in this subjection (5) shall be construed to prohibit ANY PERSON FROM DISPENSING CARE TO AN ANIMAL IN THE INTEREST OF IMPROVING THAT ANIMAL'S HEALTH. The language of the Title would lead a lay person to believe that the act in which the proposed amendments would seek to make criminal are those that would be objectionable to any reasonable person. What it does not clearly state is that common veterinary and animal husbandry practices, such as spaying, neutering, palpating, artificial insemination, correcting a breech baby, etc., would be considered a criminal act and subject to criminal sanctions. The following changes should be made to the title: A change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and allowing an exception only for care to improve the animal's health and eliminating the existing exception for animal husbandry practices and veterinary practices such as spaying, neutering, artificial insemination, and breeding; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not animal cruelty if done according to acceptable animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing several exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, including exceptions for animal husbandry; and providing that, in case of a conflict, the cruelty to animals statutes supersede statutes concerning animal care. The following changes should be made to the title and submission clause: 2 Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and allowing an exception only for care to improve the animal's health and eliminating the existing exception for animal husbandry practices and veterinary practices such as spaying, neutering, artificial insemination, and breeding; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not animal cruelty if done according to acceptable animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing several exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, including exceptions for animal husbandry; and providing that, in case of a conflict, the cruelty to animals statutes supersede statutes concerning animal care? B. The Initiative impermissibly addresses multiple subjects. The Initiative addresses at least two separate and distinct subjects. It is therefore prohibited by article V, section 5 of the Colorado Constitution and the Board should decline to fix a title for it. Each initiative that proposes an amendment to the State Constitution shall contain only one subject, clearly expressed in the title set for that initiative. See Cob. Const. Art. V., § 1(5.5) (the "Single Subject Rule"); see also C.R. S. § 1-40-106.5 (single -subject requirements for initiated measures); In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, 974 P.2d 458, 463 (Cob. 1999) (proposed initiative violates single subject rule where it "has at least two distinct and separate purposes which are not dependent upon or connected with each other."). In the February 15, 2021 Memorandum from the Legislative Council staff and Office of Legislative Legal Services under "Purposes," it is stated: The major purposes of the [Initiative] appear to be: 1. Update language in the criminal cruelty to animal statutes (sections 18-9-201, 18-9-201.5, and 18-9-202, Colorado Revised Statutes) to create greater protections for animals from suffering and exploitation by raising the standard of care; and 2. Extending certain portions of the criminal cruelty to animal statutes to include, in certain instances, livestock, and criminalizing actions that are currently considered legal animal husbandry practices. Movants would agree that the two stated purposes are contained in the Initiative but would assert that there are two more purposes; the first of which would amend the language and requirements contained in Chapter 12 of Colorado Revised Statutes known as the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act. The Initiative seeks to amend what constitutes cruelty to animals and to prohibit individuals from performing certain practices. What is also does by inference is to prohibit current practices by licensed veterinarians which will result in potential criminal violations for practices which are currently allowed for and regulated through the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act. The second purpose is that it creates a new statutory criterion describing the lifespan of certain animals without any scientific basis which is arbitrary and capricious standards and could potentially be in violation of the interstate commerce doctrines. Finally, the Initiative would override and contradict all the existing laws and regulations regarding fisheries and practices. This must be considered as a separate and distinct subject. 3 The Single Subject Rule prohibits attempts to roll together multiple subjects in order to attract the votes of those who would favor one of those subjects but would oppose the others. See, e.g., In re Proposed Initiative for 2005-2006 #74, 136 P.3d 237. 242 (Colo. 2006); In re Proposed Initiative for 1997-1998 #84, 961 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo. 1998). The Initiative combines the two subjects identified in the Memorandum with the additional purposes listed above, potentially attracting voters who might support changing what constitutes cruelty to animals but would not support limiting what is allowed by licensed veterinarians and livestock stewards for the care of all animals. Therefore, the Board should determine that the Initiative violates the Single Subject Rule and that a title cannot be set for it. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of March, 2021 by the Movants indicated below. (Signature pages provided in counterparts.) By the following MOVANT : /j Name: /ZC17C, /Zd ,.CL, '-'-''C Address: n2 4,cJ,`5 -c97 qq Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: By the following MOVANTS: Name: Q u , c./ C. /ter t e Yom` Address: /0 K j n b e c ccr'cArt �,� C7 Cc - Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: 5 1Naineku2 GL S Address: j La i f 5 K t/ G��e' R b Co 1/ Z• Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: By the following MOVAN[TS: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: By the following MOVANTS: Name: Address: c2C3 S � ' c f c-�c'�� S cola Name: Address: Name: C1)(31/n 3+1%t !Yrl t/ r� Address: 2.5> 54cadfzev Uvt T151 RC'10 C o(c 113 7 Address: �� { vet Arij - flfltcwo5 � �t41k7oiJn Name: - � 6 5 15 v v' cvv.5 U Address: Cc?. Name: 3�� t~ Varresf- kekleS v�+� Address: th ar F; r tc( *2O (L, 'g1, 01 2kkLfrcQ Address: Li it oorK Name: Address: V'1 t4°fr'.,� Sfcr 1k Name:-gr, Address: Zla.�\�-,�l�,,so `6'( Naine:"ryIef Address: 6 z0 SAND . PUO&E ouft'T 5 By the following MOVANTS: Name: /ilaL4— Address: tz `! S L e y eec✓r b. VNl- ,ttq C, CQ Name: ` f CD ( a D. l y�` ( Cb I i7 Address: Name: 11 lD Cp-31 u -v P,b 71 I37 Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 24th day of March, 2021, a true and correct copy of the MOTION FOR REHEARING was filed with the Colorado Secretary of State and served via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Alexander Sage P. 0. Box 81 Broomfield, CO 80038 Brent Johannes P. 0. Box 81 Broomfield, CO 80038 6 CDOS Received 3/24/2021 4:32 p.m. BEFORE THE COLORADO BALLOT TITLE SETTING BOARD Janie VanWinkle, Carlyle Currier, Chris Kraft, Terri Diane Lamers, William Hammerich, and Joyce Kelly, Objectors, ►11 Alexander Sage and Brent Johannes, Proponents. MOTION FOR REHEARING ON INITIATIVE 2020-2021 #16 Janie VanWinkle, Carlyle Currier, Chris Kraft, Terri Diane Lamers, William Hammerich, and Joyce Kelly ("Objectors"), registered electors of the State of Colorado, through undersigned counsel, submit this Motion For Rehearing on Initiative 2020-2021 #16 ("#16"), pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-40-107, and states: The Title Board should grant this Motion for the following reasons: 1. Initiative #16 contains two subjects: removal of the livestock exemption from the animal cruelty statutes and an expansion, for political purposes, of statutes addressing "sexual act with an animal"; 2. The titles set by the Title Board are misleading and incomplete as they do not fairly communicate the true intent and meaning of the measure; and 3. The Title Board impermissibly included political catchphrases in the titles. Accordingly, the Title Board should grant this Motion and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, amend the title and ballot title and submission clause. A. The Title Board set a title for Initiative #16 on March 17, 2021. The Title Board designated and fixed the following title for Initiative #16: A change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and allowing an exception only for care to improve the animal's health and eliminating the existing exception for animal husbandry practices; defining the "natural lifespan "for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not animal cruelty if done according to acceptable animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing several exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, including exceptions for animal husbandry; and providing that, in case of a conflict, the cruelty to animals statutes supersede statutes concerning animal care. The Board designated and fixed the ballot title and submission clause to track the language in the title. B. Initiative #16 violates the single subject limitation for ballot initiatives. Colorado law provides that ballot initiatives may only contain a single subject. Colo. Const. art. V, sec 1 (5.5). This means that "the subject matter of an initiative must be necessarily and properly connected rather than disconnected or incongruous." In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2013-2014 #90, 328 P.3d 155, 159 (Colo. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). If a measure contains multiple subjects, the Title Board lacks jurisdiction to set titles. Colo. Const. art. V, sec 1 (5.5). The measure's Proponents stated that the single subject is the "the removal of the exemption that livestock has in the animal cruelty statutes." Title Bd. Hr'g Mar. 17, 2021 at 9:50. The Proponents nonetheless included a second subject within the measure: redefinition of "sexual act with an animal." These subjects are not "necessarily connected" but are logically distinct and separate issues. One issue concerns the expansion of the types of animals covered by the animal cruelty statute, while the other redefines a type of conduct that constitutes animal cruelty regardless of the animal. It is unnecessary to redefine "sexual act with an animal" in order to address the Proponents' intent of removing the exceptions for livestock in the statute. The fact that both issues concern animals or animal cruelty generally does not avoid the single subject violation. See, e.g., In re The Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1999-2000 # 29, 972 P.2d 257, 263 (Colo. 1999); In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, and Summary Adopted April 5, 1995, 898 P.2d 1076, 1080 (Colo. 1995). The second subject here violates the underlying concern behind single subject requirement that a subject pass on its own merits and without comingling of support for another subject. See, e.g., In re 1999-2000# 29, 972 P.2d at 261. "Sexual act with an animal" is a highly charged reference, used to attract supporters who would not otherwise be sympathetic to this measure. Further, it is unrelated to the central livestock question of how farmed animals are to be treated before they enter the food chain. The proponents' website admits they intend to argue that a "yes" vote will prevent sexual assaults of "all farmed animals." The initiative informally titled Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation, is a ballot initiative filed with the state of Colorado for the November 2022 midterm election. If enacted, the initiative would simply extend the most basic animal welfare rights that are granted to pets to all farmed animals. While the animal is alive, it must not be abandoned, abused, neglected, mistreated or sexually assaulted. See https://www.coloradopause.org/about (last viewed March 24, 2021) (attached). It is entirely appropriate for the Board to consider the proponents' contemporary political statements to the public — as communicated by means of their website — to determine the actual intent of those who propose this initiative. In re Title & Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2005-2006 #55, 138 P.3d 273, 281 (Colo. 2006) (hereafter "In re #55 ") (citing proponents' website three times to find multiple subjects proposed by an initiative). These two subjects are recognized as separate topics. A prominent online journalism site, The Colorado Sun, ran an article on #16, the subtitle of which summarized both of the measure's subjects: "The proposed ballot measure would expand the definition of sex acts with animals and require that hogs, cattle, chickens and other farm animals get to live 25% of their natural lifespan." Brown, J., "Animal cruelty initiative aggravates Colorado ranchers fresh off MeatOut Day controversy," The Colorado Sun, March 22, 2021 https://coloradosun.com/2021/03/22/animal-cruelty-ballot-measure/ (last viewed March 24, 2021) (emphasis added). A third subject in #16 is the requirement that specified animals live one -quarter of their new, statutorily designated lifespans. A mandate for a guaranteed term of years for certain animals is not integrally or necessarily related to either of the above discussed subjects. The single subject statement ("expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals") is simply too broad to be a single subject under Colorado law. "[C]onsistent with the goal of prohibiting a single legislative act from addressing disconnected or incongruous measures, an initiative grouping distinct purposes under a broad theme will not satisfy the single subject requirement." See In re #55, supra. 138 P.2d at 275. Thus, because Initiative #16 violates the Constitution's single subject restriction, the Board lacks jurisdiction to set the titles. C. The title and ballot title and submission clause are misleading and incomplete. In setting a title, the Title Board "shall consider the public confusion that might be caused by misleading titles," and ensure that a title "correctly and fairly express[es] the true intent and meaning" of the proposed law. C.R.S. § 1-40-106(3)(b). The title must "fairly reflect the proposed initiative so that petition signers and voters will not be misled into support for or against a proposition by reason of the words employed by the Board." In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause 2007-2008 # 62 184 P.3d 52, 58 (Colo. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1. The titles fail to reflect the measure's true intent and meaning, which is to remove livestock exception from the animal cruelty statutes. The titles do not express the intent behind the measure, which is to remove the exception for livestock from the animal cruelty statutes. Instead, the titles generally state that the measure "concern[s] expanding prohibitions against cruelty to animals." Further, while the titles note that the measure eliminates exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes, they do not unambiguously state that the targeted exception concerns "livestock" and, instead, refer to "animal husbandry" exceptions. Animal husbandry is a term of art with which an average elector may not be familiar, K, and the ushise of the phrase without definition does not adequately describe the measure's meaning and intent. See In re Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause for 2009-2010 # 45, 234 P.3d 642, 649 (Colo. 2010) (title language must not "conceal some hidden intent"). 2. The titles are incomplete and misleading because they do not state that Initiative #16 changes the criminal laws concerning livestock. Initiative #16 proposes amendments to the criminal code governing the treatment of animals. However, the titles do not provide any indication or notice that the measure concerns criminal liability; indeed, the titles do not even reference that the statute is a criminal statute. The titles instead refer to "animal cruelty," but a voter may not know that "animal cruelty" is a criminal violation and not a civil violation. That the measure proposes changes to the criminal code is a material consideration that may directly affect whether an elector supports the measure. Thus, the titles should clearly state that the measure addresses and expands criminal liability. See In re Title, Ballot Title, & Submission Clause for Initiative 2007-2008 #57, 185 P.3d 142, 147 (Colo. 2008) (Title Board correctly summarized initiative's change to criminal statute as "extending criminal liability..."). 3. The titles inadequately describe the scope of the revisions to "sexual act with an animal" by omitting the "however slight" language from the measure. Although the titles address the measure's revision to the definition of "sexual act with an animal," they omit a critical component of the measure's sweep: that any intrusion or penetration "however slight" falls within the revised definition. The inclusion of "however slight" effectively makes any contact with an animal's anus or genitals —for instance while brushing or washing a pet —a "sexual act with an animal." The revised definition thus "adopt[s] a new or controversial legal standard which would be significant to all concerned," and must therefore be included in the titles. In re The Title, Ballot Title and Submission Clause, and Summary for 1999-2000 # 255, 4 P.3d 485, 497 (Colo. 2000) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted). 4. The titles do not adequately state or describe the definition of the "natural lifespan" of certain livestock, which is a new and controversial legal standard. Initiative #16 includes a new definition of the "natural lifespan" of certain types of livestock by defining specific lifespans for specific animals (e.g. rabbit 6 years). This definition is central to the measure, as it affects when it would be lawful to slaughter livestock. Yet the titles inadequately describe the new legal standard, as it simply references the new "natural lifespan" definition without restating or explaining it. A voter cannot understand the measure's 1/4 lifespan requirement for lawful slaughtering of livestock without understanding the nature of the new lifespan definition. Therefore, the titles are insufficient for failing to either restate the definition or adequately explain its scope by identifying the animals at issue and how "natural lifespan" is being defined. See In re 1999-2000 # 255, 4 P.3d at 497. The titles' language is also misleading because it does not clearly state the central change for lawful slaughter: an animal owner must ensure an animal meets the 1/4 lifespan requirement to avoid criminal prosecution. To adequately explain the measure, the titles should state the specific lifespans, mandated by and listed in this measure, for each affected animal. 5. The titles are incomplete and misleading as they do not identify the exceptions to the animal cruelty statutes the Initiative #16 removes. The central purpose of the measure is to remove exceptions from the animal cruelty statute, including not only for livestock but also pack or draft animals, animals involved in activities regulated pursuant to article 32 of title 44, animals involved in rodeos, and hunting dogs. See 2021-2022 #16, sec. 3. The titles nowhere identify the exceptions the measure is removing, referring only to "animal husbandry" (itself a misleading reference to livestock). As the removal of these exceptions is a central element of the measure, the titles must identify them to apprise voters of the measure's intent and purpose. 6. The titles' description of the measure's conflicts of laws provision is misleading. Initiative #16 states that, "[i]n case of any conflict between animal care otherwise authorized by law, this part 2 shall control." See 2021-2022 #16, sec. 2. Thus, where there is a conflict between the animal cruelty statutes and another statute concerning animal care, the animal care statute is of no effect. However, the titles ambiguously describe this change as the animal cruelty statutes "supersede" conflicting animal care statutes. This phrasing is misleading as to the effect of the measure on other statutes. In addition, "supersede" is a vague term that could make certain voters believe that animal care statutes remain in place but are of no effect here, whereas other voters would think that such statutes have been repealed or replaced. "The word `supersede' means to 'be superior to,' 'to make obsolete, inferior, or outmoded,' 'to make void,' 'to make superfluous or unnecessary,' 'to take the place of,' or 'to cause to be supplanted in a position or function." Bd. of County Comm'rs of San Miguel v. Roberts, 159 P.3d 800, 804 (Colo. App. 2006), citing Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2295 (1986) (emphasis added). The Board's use of this word that is not used in #16 itself will lead to unnecessary voter confusion. D. The title and ballot title and submission clause include "political catch phrases." The Title Board must avoid the use of "political catch phrases," which are "terms that work in favor of a proposal without contributing to voter understanding; they trigger a favorable response to the proposal based not on its content but on its wording." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2019-2020 #3, 454 P.3d 1056, 1062 (Colo. 2019). First, the phrase "cruelty to animals," which is used both at the beginning and end of the titles, is a "political catch phrase." It evokes emotions supportive of the measure —protecting animals from abuse —that are disconnected from the wording and intent of the measure, which is changing the treatment of livestock under the law. The question for this Board is whether the referenced language will "improperly distract voters or appeal to their emotions." In re Title Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015-2016 #63, 2016 CO 34, ¶27, 370 P.3d 628, 634 (emphasis added). Even though the phrase appears in the statute and the measure, "the Title Board is not free to include this wording in the titles if, as here, it constitutes a catch phrase." In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 1999-2000 # 258(A), 4 P.3d 1094, 1100 (Colo. 2000). Second, the title's description of "sexual act with an animal" ("intrusion or penetration into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body") is a socially and politically loaded phrase. The measure itself redefines sexual abuse with an animal in order to use that as a hook for voters. The language evokes emotions concerning sexual abuse of an animal, and graphically describes what constitutes such abuse under the measure. The graphic nature of the language, although included in the measure's language, triggers a response separate and apart from the Initiative's wording and effect, which impermissibly "tips the substantive debate surrounding the issue to be submitted to the electorate." Id. As evidence of this political catch phrase, the proponents' own website tells voters that this provision isn't about changing standards for animal care but is, instead, designed to ensure that farmed animals are not "sexually assaulted." See https://www.coloradopause.org/about (attached). Further, one Colorado state representative has summarized the political volatility of this phraseology by noting that voters who are approached to support the measure will be asked "a simple question: 'Who Wants to Have Sex with Animals?" Smith, J., "The animal cruelty initiative is exacerbating controversy among Colorado ranchers," Arabica Post, https://arabicapost.net/the-animal-cruelty-initiative-is-exacerbating-controversy-among- colorado-ranchers/amp/ (last reviewed March 24, 2021) (comments of Rep. Richard Holtorf (R -Washington County)). Finally, this reference is intended to be — and will be — misleading to voters, as it triggers a canard that is unrelated to what is otherwise portrayed as the topic of this measure. See Cox, M., "Don't buy the hype — it's not about animals," Montrose Press, Mar. 11, 2021, https://www.montrosepress.com/news/agriculture/don-t-buy-the-hype-it-s-not-about- animals/article 9b5550bc-8201-1 leb-8db8-fflf25d88ec3.html (given this wording, "those with pruriently active minds will think of people having sexual relations with an animal"). Accordingly, as the titles include impermissible political catch phrases, the Title Board should amend the titles to omit the catch phrases. WHEREFORE, a rehearing in this matter should be scheduled for the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting, and the titles set March 17, 2021, should be reversed, due to the single subject violation, misleading and incomplete language, including the use of political catch phrases. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of March, 2021. s/Mark G. Grueskin Mark G. Grueskin, #14621 Recht Kornfeld, P.C. 1600 Stout Street, Suite 1400 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-573-1900 (telephone) mark(a),rklawpc.com 6 Objectors' Addresses: Janie VanWinkle Colorado Cattlemen's Association 2043 N Road 9055 Fruita, CO 81521 Carlyle Currier Colorado Farm Bureau 9177 East Mineral Circle Centennial, CO 80112 Chris Kraft Colorado Dairy Farmers 800 Washington Street, #702 Denver, CO 80203 Terri Diane Lamers Colorado Wool Growers Association PO Box 292 Delta, CO 81416-0292 William Hammerich Colorado Livestock Association 2425 35th Ave. #202 Greeley, CO 80634 Joyce Kelly Colorado Pork Producers Association 23101 CR64 Greeley, CO 80631 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Erin Holweger, hereby affirm that a true and accurate copy of the Motion For Rehearing for Initiative 2020-2021 #16, was sent this 24th day of March, 2021 by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the designated representatives at: Alexander Sage Brent Johannes PO Box 81 PO Box 81 Broomfield CO 80038 Broomfield CO 80038 s/Erin Holweger rA about I Colorado PAUSE X + — =? C a coloradopause.org/about r� © About Ballot Initiative PAUSE Introduction The initiative informally titled Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation, is a ballot initiative filed with the state of Colorado for the November 2022 midterm election. If enacted, the initiative would simply extend the most basic animal welfare rights that are granted to pets to all farmed animals. While the animal is alive, it must not be abandoned, abused, neglected, mistreated or sexually assaulted. We believe there is no rational r animals from basic abuse laws protect our pets.. To learn more, initiative or our FAQs page. .• ie+ud3.at5Yn:`6RR4sTu.y` eason to exempt farmed that currently exist to please see the full form There is a lot of work ahead of us and a lot of money against any imposition of basic human kindness into the animal agriculture industry. Stand with us and help ensure animals are treated with dignity: join here Background After seeing with our own eyes, thousands of chickens on a Colorado organic free range farm left without food and severely abused, we knew there was a discrepancy between the public image and the reality of some farms. We sought to make use of some time in the pandemic to research the loopholes in the current animal cruelty laws that allow this to happen. We learned that animal agriculture is explicitly exempt from the entire animal cruelty section of the Colorado Revised Statutes (18-9-202). Result The best initiative to write was clear and simple; extend the definition of animal cruelty to farmed animals. Exemptions were left in the statutes for slaughter, About I Colorado PAUSE X + X F C O coloradopause.org/about [3; Yk Q 5 * © Result The best initiative to write was clear and simple; extend the definition of animal cruelty to farmed animals. Exemptions were left in the statutes for slaughter, research, and wildlife. The resulting ballot initiative seeks to legally require farms to treat their animals with some respect, and bring the reality closer to the idealistic image of what the average consumer hopes is the truth. The animal agriculture industry nationwide has shown the power of their money by passing the some of the most restrictive privacy laws of any industry. So we know we have an uphill battle ahead of us, but we know with even more conviction that the arc of history bends towards justice and compassion. Compassion is on our side for this campaign. Join us and leave your mark by standing up to protect all animals from unnecessary suffering and exploitation. See the full text of the initiative here for explicit details. hicq `44e�aaoP 0s x' f= Colorado PAUSE it DONATE Home FAQs About Get Involved Ballot Initiative IHome FAQs •" Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation 2 0 2 2 Ballot Initiative Contact :a_ SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER Get the latest updates from the campaign Based out of Denver Colorado SUBSCRIBE Ballot Title Setting Board Proposed Initiative 2021-2022 #161 The title as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: A change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding crimes relating to cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration, however slight, into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and removing the existing exception for animal husbandry practices and creating an exception for care to improve the animal's health; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not criminal animal cruelty if done according to accepted animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing the exception to the animal cruelty statutes for animal husbandry practices used in the care of companion or livestock animals; eliminating some exceptions to certain sentencing requirements; and providing that, in case of a conflict with animal care otherwise authorized by law, the criminal cruelty to animals statutes control. The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed by the Board is as follows: Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning expanding crimes relating to cruelty to animals, and, in connection therewith, expanding the definition of "livestock" to include fish; expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal" to include intrusion or penetration, however slight, into an animal's anus or genitals with an object or part of a person's body and removing the existing exception for animal husbandry practices and creating an exception for care to improve the animal's health; defining the "natural lifespan" for certain species of livestock and providing that slaughtering those animals is not criminal animal cruelty if done according to accepted animal husbandry practices after the animal has lived 1/4 of the natural lifespan; removing the exception to the animal cruelty statutes for animal husbandry practices used in the care of companion or livestock animals; eliminating some exceptions to certain sentencing requirements; and providing that, in case of a conflict with animal care otherwise authorized by law, the criminal cruelty to animals statutes control? 1 Unofficially captioned "Laws Concerning Cruelty to Animals" by legislative staff for tracking purposes. This caption is not part of the titles set by the Board. Hearing March 17, 2021: Single subject approved; staff draft amended; titles set. Hearing adjourned 12: 38 p.m. Rehearing April 7, 2021: Motion for Rehearing (Riley, et al.) ranted only to the extent that the Board made changes to the title; denied in all other respects. Motion for Rehearing (Van Winkle, et al.) granted only to the extent that the Board made changes to the titles; denied in all other respects. Board Members: Theresa Conley, Julie Pelegrin, LeeAnn Morrill Hearing adjourned: 12: 07 p. m. f1 Legislative Council Staff Nonpartisan Services for Colorado's Legislature Date: March 16, 2021 Fiscal Summary Fiscal Analyst: Clare Pramuk ((303-866-2677)) LCS TITLE: LAWS CONCERNING CRUELTY TO ANIMALS Fiscal Summary of Initiative 16 This fiscal summary, prepared by the nonpartisan Director of Research of the Legislative Council, contains a preliminary assessment of the measure's fiscal impact. A full fiscal impact statement for this initiative is or will be available at www.ColoradoBlueBook.com. This fiscal summary identifies the following impact. State revenue. This initiative will increase revenue from fine penalties by an indeterminate amount if persons are convicted of the new and modified criminal offenses created by the measure. In addition, fee revenue from brand inspections by the Department of Agriculture may decrease to the extent that more time will elapse before livestock can be slaughtered. These revenue impacts have not been quantified. State expenditures. The initiative will require additional staffing at the Department of Agriculture to assist in the investigation of animal cruelty investigations. This is expected to cost approximately $200,000 per year. Local government impact. Local law enforcement will have increased workload to investigate and prosecute more cases involving animal cruelty. Persons convicted of the new and modified offenses under the initiative may potentially be incarcerated in a county jail, which would increase costs for counties. Economic impact. By significantly extending the period of time that livestock must be raised and cared for prior to slaughter, the initiative will increase costs for meat producers and increase the price of meat products paid by consumers. Longer periods of livestock care will also increase demand and prices for other commodities such as grain and feed. Higher prices for meat producers and consumers will decrease the amount of money that they have to spend or save elsewhere in the economy. The initiative may shift consumer demand or production activity to other areas of the economy as a result of higher production costs. Hello