With the November General Election now two months away, there is one thing that is certain about the 2016 ballot that Oklahoma voters will consider. It will be loaded with State Questions- and they are likely to provide much of the drama leading up to election day at the state level. Leading the pack, based on the likely resources that both the proponents and the opponents may end up spending is State Question 777, the Right to Farm Constitutional Amendment.


One of the authors of HR 1012, the underlying measure that was overwhelmingly passed by the State Legislature in 2015, is Scott Biggs. I sat down with State Representative Biggs and State Representative Casey Murdock at the State Capitol on Wednesday to talk about their take on the rhetoric on State Question 777 that has been flying to this point- and is likely to become even louder between now and November 8th. You can hear their conversation by clicking on the LISTEN BAR below.


Biggs addressed several of the arguments being made by opponents of the State Question, starting with the claim that an out of state group known as ALEC wrote the language of the proposal- and that the group, the American Legislative Exchange Council, is the mouthpiece of Big Corporations. Drew Edmondson with the Oklahoma Stewardship Council wrote in a local magazine, OKC Pets, about his concerns with ALEC, and contends that the language for 777 was "copied and pasted from a measure written by ALEC and its corporate members." Biggs says not true- "You know, it's funny but we passed several ALEC bills this last session, both Republicans and Democrats supporting, but this bill was not one of them. This bill did not come from ALEC. ALEC had some model farm legislation dealing with nuisance laws which we already have on the books and have had on the books for awhile, but they had nothing on a state amendment like this- this bill came from Oklahoma cattlemen, Oklahoma producers, Oklahoma Associations that protect the interests of farmers- it did not come from out of state."

Listen to and read more from the conversation that we had with Biggs and Murdock- click or tap here.

Also- note in both this story and the next story that features our conversation with Drew Edmondson that we have multiple links that will help you further research State Question 777.

 

 
The Oklahoma Stewardship Council, closely aligned with the Humane Society of the US, held what was billed as a kick off meeting against State Question 777 on Wednesday night. This meeting in downtown Oklahoma City was the first of a total of twelve meetings planned across Oklahoma over the next two weeks.


About thirty supporters of the Stewardship Council attended the meeting- and heard from several speakers who were critical of the process of putting State Question 777 on the ballot, as well as the measure itself. Oklahoma City State Representative Jason Dunnington was proud of his no vote on HR 1012, the underlying legislation that resulted in State Question 777 in 2015- and he sounded a familiar theme that this measure will be harmful to small family farmers.


Featured speaker for the event was former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who is the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Stewardship Council- who told the supporters present that proponents of 777 are telling lies as they attempt to convince voters to support the measure. Ahead of his presenation, Edmondson talked with me and said he was most concerned about protecting the environment. The former AG contends that the Amendment, if approved, would prevent Oklahoma from being able to exercise oversight over ag practices in the future saying "other then the laws that were on the books in 2014, there will be no new regulation of agriculture in the future and that is, to me, very dangerous."

You can read more and hear my full conversation and with the former AG- and his arguments against 777- click or tap here.

For the second time- OSU has released their fact sheet on State Question 777- I was told that it was initially released- but that the "administration" that is normally not part of the vetting process for a simple extension fact sheet was concerned they were not being unbiased enought- pulled it off the internet and took about two weeks to have attorneys go over the language- asked for changes and finally re-released it yesterday. According to the disclaimer at the top of the revised fact sheet- "As with all political issues, OSU is not taking a stand on State Question 777. As appropriate research, based on sound science becomes available, it will be shared with the public."


According to the fact sheet, authors Shannon Ferrell and Larry Sanders suggest that due to growing concerns within Oklahoma's agriculture and agribusiness sectors and interest groups about the potentiality of infringed occupational rights, the Oklahoma Legislature has proposed a ballot question for the 2016 general election. If a vote in affirmation of the question takes place, it would effectively amend the Oklahoma State Constitution and bar public opinion and governmental bodies and agencies from restricting or regulating accepted modern practices in agriculture unless mandated by a compelling state interest. 


The Cooperative Extension released their research on the question's predicted impact to be shared with the public. It details several legal questions that have arisen from the question's proposal such as how it differs from existing state statutes that protect agriculture, what defines a compelling state interest and other questions pertaining to policy and economics.


Click here for a link to view the SQ777-Right to Farm Fact Sheet issued by OSU Cooperative Extension.