Colorado's Initiative 16 nixed by CO Supreme Court

[Dusty Britches]

We saw this in the Western Journal:

CO Supreme Court scraps animal cruelty measure

Much to the relief of those in agriculture, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled June 21 in a 7-0 vote that a proposed animal cruelty measure was unconstitutional.

www.wlj.net

Good new for sure!

 

[shaz]

7-0 vote. Maybe that will send a message to the fruit loops who thought this shinola up

 

[Dsth]

what a disaster for the farmers/ranchers had the court not used common sense and voted the other way.

 

[Ky hills]

This is something that concerns me going forward, whether it's with liberal or conservative legislators. Right now at least there are some folks that have some common sense when it comes to agriculture. My worries are as more and more people on both sides of the aisle are farther removed from agriculture and it's importance then the only thing that gets their attention is if something is able to be politicized. We currently have about all conservative county officials many that are younger and unfortunately have no knowledge or interest in agricultural issues despite this being a fairly rural area.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Don't think this was as big a win as it appears. If you actually READ the article - it was voted down for a technicality (two subjects instead of just 1 - making it confusing for voters). They did not vote against it because it was down right stupid.

 

[shaz]

This is something that concerns me going forward, whether it's with liberal or conservative legislators. Right now at least there are some folks that have some common sense when it comes to agriculture. My worries are as more and more people on both sides of the aisle are farther removed from agriculture and it's importance then the only thing that gets their attention is if something is able to be politicized. We currently have about all conservative county officials many that are younger and unfortunately have no knowledge or interest in agricultural issues despite this being a fairly rural area.

Your concern is very justified. I look at the questions my step kids ask - they have no clue whatsoever. They all grew up in the suburbs and have zero "rural skills".

 

[bigbluegrass]

Don't think this was as big a win as it appears. If you actually READ the article - it was voted down for a technicality (two subjects instead of just 1 - making it confusing for voters). They did not vote against it because it was down right stupid.

I agree. I was a bit disappointed it wasn't rejected on other grounds - such as being "down right stupid". I wonder if that is a valid legal argument.

 

[Dusty Britches]

Don't think this was as big a win as it appears. If you actually READ the article - it was voted down for a technicality (two subjects instead of just 1 - making it confusing for voters). They did not vote against it because it was down right stupid.

Yes, I agree. I just wanted to share the article and did not have time to add that part. It was won on a technicality. I'm sure it will be back.