The initiative and referendum process has a long history in the United States. Most states have made this process part of their state constitutions to ensure greater checks and balances on government action.
Generally, these ballot measures can be broken down into two general types:
- Initiative: where the people of a state place legislation or constitutional amendments directly on the ballot after a petition drive; and
- Popular Referendum: the ability of the people of a state to refer newly enacted legislation from the state legislature to the ballot for final approval.
According to the United States Humane Society, one of the principal players in organizing ballot measures for animal protection, the referendum process has been used to advocate for animals since 1940, with the first successful measure placed on the ballot in South Dakota in 1972. (See http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/legislation/ballot_initiatives_chart.pdf). In recent years, measures have targeted cruel hunting practices, funding for conservation measures, horse racing, livestock methods, and trapping. Some states now have laws prohibiting animal fighting due to ballot measures rather than the traditional legislative process.
Since 1998, ballot measures have focused on six general areas:
- Cruel confinement of livestock or agricultural animals
- Cruelty measures (general anti-cruelty laws, animal fighting, "puppy mills," and dog racing)
- Hunting restrictions (mainly involving species such as bears, doves, and wolves or prohibiting certain "game farm" hunting)
- Limiting state wildlife initiatives (these measures would remove or limit the ability of citizens to petition for wildlife protection measures by changing the number of voters requires or otherwise making these measures more difficult to place on the ballot)
- Right to hunt initiatives (constitutional amendments that declare citizens' right to hunt with hunting as the preferred management method)
- Trapping restrictions (outlawing certain traps or the use of poison)
While most ballot proposals address specific issues, four states (Alaska, Arizona, Oklahoma and Utah) have proposed measures that would actually restrict the ability of their citizens to place wildlife-related referenda or initiatives on the ballot. These measures operate to directly limit measure that affect the taking of wildlife or place higher requirements for these measures to appear on the ballot. For example, the failed Oklahoma referendum from 2002 would have changed the number of voters required to change the law from 8% to 15% only for laws that would "do away with" methods for hunting, fishing and trapping. The Utah resolution from 1998 worked to require a "supermajority" to change any law allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the taking of wildlife. Critics contend such measures amount to "viewpoint discrimination" in violation of First Amendment protections and are aimed at limiting restrictions on hunting.
Perhaps in response to animal advocates exerting more power at the voting booth, at least 17 states proposed what are coined "right to hunt" initiatives. These measures appear as constitutional amendments that make hunting and trapping an inherent right of state citizens. They also typically assert that wildlife is held in the "public trust" and hunting, fishing, and trapping are the preferred methods for wildlife management.
Beyond the popular "right to hunt" measures, a few states have been successful with assuring protection for certain livestock animals (mainly calves and pregnant pigs) through ballot measures. Three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) now have stronger protections for veal calves and pregnant pigs due to such referenda.
In 2013, Michigan appeared to be the only state with an animal-related ballot measure. The group "Keep Michigan Wolves Protected" has launched efforts to repeal the reclassification of Michigan wolves as a game species. This enabled the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) the ability to establish the state's first wolf hunt since wolves were first protected 50 years ago. Now in 2014, voters have the opportunity to engage in a "veto referendum" to reject the laws that allow the NRC to establish wolf hunting.
The table below outlines these ballot measures since 1998. You can find your state's measures by finding your state in the first column, or by looking at the topics across the top row.
To search for older animal-related initiatives (or any topic), you can visit the State Ballot Measures Database maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/ballot-measures-database.aspx
State |
Agricultural Measures Related to Animals |
Animal cruelty |
Animal Fighting |
Bears |
Horses and Burros |
Hunting & Wildlife Initiatives |
Pigs and Hogs |
Racing Animals |
Trapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama |
|
|
|
Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2014 election. The proposed amendment asks voters "to clarify that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management . . . " It was passed by 79.8% of the vote. |
|||||
Alaska |
2004 Ballot Measure 3: This Alaska ballot measure was defeated in the November 2004 election. It would have made it illegal for a person to bait or intentionally feed a bear for purposes of hunting, viewing, or photographing the bear. A person who violated this proposed law would have been guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. It failed with only 43.3% of the vote. | 2008 Ballot Measure 2, 05-HUNT (Wolf Hunting): This measure was an initiated state statute. The measure would have prohibited shooting of a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. It was defeated by a margin of 44.4% to 55.6% on August 26, 2008. 2000 Ballot Measure 6, Aerial Hunting: Voters are asked to either approve or reject a law allowing hunters to use airplanes to land and shoot wolves on the same day they fly. The law allows any person with a hunting or trapping license to land and shoot in areas established by the Board of Game. No additional permit may be required. The law also allows the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to use agents, as well as employees, to engage in same day airborne shooting of wolves. The measure passed with 53% of the vote. 2000 Ballot Measure 1, Prohibiting Wildlife Initiatives: This Alaska ballot measure would change the Alaska Constitution so that voters could not use the initiative process to make laws that permit, regulate, or prohibit taking or transporting wildlife, or prescribe seasons or methods for taking wildlife. The measure failed with 36% of the vote. |
1998 Ballot Measure 9, Wolf Snare Trapping: This bill would have prohibited a person from using a snare with the intent of trapping a wolf and appeared on the 2000 ballot. It would also have prohibited a person from possessing, buying, selling, or offering to sell the skin of a wolf known by the person to have been caught with a snare. Breaking the law would have been a Class A misdemeanor. The measure failed with only 37.3% of the vote. | ||||||
Arizona |
2006 Proposition 204: This proposition would prohibit the cruel confinement of a pig during pregnancy or a calf that is raised for veal. The measure passed in November of 2006 by a vote of 61 to 39%. | 1998 Proposition 201: This proposition would make cockfighting a Class 5 felony for knowingly, owning, possessing, keeping, or training a cock for cockfighting; causing any cock to fight or injure another cock for amusement or gain, or allowing cockfighting on a person's property; making it a Class 1 misdemeanor for being present at a cockfight. The measure passed 68% to 32%. | 2012 Proposition 109: This measure would have amended the state constitution to state that wildlife is held in trust for the citizens of this state, whom have a right to lawfully hunt, fish and harvest the wildlife. It also provided that the legislature has exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting of wildlife. It was defeated in 2010 with only 43.5% supporting the proposition. 2000 Proposition 102: This proposition attempted to restrict voter initiatives with regard to wildlife. It would have amended the state constitution to create a "public trust" concept of wildlife management. Proposition 102 would have amended the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative measure relating to the taking of wildlife does not go into effect unless it is approved by at least two-thirds of the voters who vote on the measure. It failed with only 37.5% voting for the measure. |
2006 Proposition 204: This proposition would prohibit the cruel confinement of a pig during pregnancy or a calf that is raised for veal. The measure passed in November of 2006 by a vote of 61 to 39%. | |||||
Arkansas |
2001 Measure 2001-389, Proposed Initiative Act 1: This ballot proposal sought to amend Arkansas' Animal Cruelty Act by making the knowing torture, mutilation, maiming, burning, poisoning, malicious killing, starving, or disfiguring of a non-exempted animal a crime known as "Aggravated Animal Cruelty." This offense would then become a Class D felony subject to enumerated penalties, including psychological counseling and forfeiture of the animal in question. This measure failed at the polls with 38% voting Yes and 62% voting No. | 2010 Constitutional Amendment 1: This resolution proposes to amend the Arkansas Constitution to provide for a constitutional right for citizens of the state of Arkansas to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife. The resolution states that the right would be limited only by the regulations consistent with Amendment 35 of the Arkansas Constitution. It was passed in 2010 by 82.8% of voters. | |||||||
California |
2008 Proposition 2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals, Initiative Statute: The proposed law requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days and would go into effect on January 1, 2015. Approved by a margin of 63% to 37% in November of 2008. | 1998 Proposition 6: This measure would prohibit any person from possessing, transferring, receiving or holding any horse, pony, burro or mule with intent to kill it or have it killed, where the person knows or should know that any part of the animal will be used for human consumption. It also added a provision making the sale of horsemeat for human consumption a misdemeanor offense, with subsequent violations punished as felonies. The measure passed 59% to 41%. | 1998 Ballot Measure 4: This state initiative measure was proposed in 1998 and prohibits trapping mammals classified as fur bearing (or non-game) with body gripping traps for recreation or commerce in fur. This includes, but is not limited to, steel-jawed leghold traps, padded-jaw leghold traps, conibear traps, and snares. Cage and box traps, nets, suitcase-type live beaver traps and common rat and mouse traps are not considered body-gripping traps. It passed with 57.5% of the vote. | ||||||
Colorado |
1998 Amendment 13, Uniform Regulation of Livestock Operations: This ballot measure sought to create uniform livestock regulations based on the potential environmental impact that the operation causes (rather than the character of the farm). It specifically sought to target the non-point pollution caused by large-scale operation run-off. The measure further added a definition for "livestock." It failed at the polls with only 38.7% of the vote. 1998 Amendment 14 Regulation of Commercial Hog Facilities: This ballot measure created additional regulations for large-scale hog producers. The goal was to better curb the waste run-off from such facilities. It passed in the 1998 election with 64.2% of the vote. |
||||||||
Connecticut |
|
||||||||
Delaware |
|||||||||
D.C. |
|||||||||
Florida |
2002 Amendment Article X Section 19: This ballot proposal, adopted in 2002 and effective in 2008, addresses the inhumane treatment of animals, specifically, pregnant pigs. The law provides that to prevent cruelty to animals and as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States, no person shall confine a pig during pregnancy in a cage, crate or other enclosure, or tether a pregnant pig, on a farm so that the pig is prevented from turning around freely, except for veterinary purposes and during the prebirthing period; provides definitions, penalties, and an effective date. This measure passed in the November 2002 election with 54% of the vote. | ||||||||
Georgia |
2006 Constitutional Amendment 2: This Georgia constitutional amendment was presented to voters on the 2006 ballot. The measure preserves the state's tradition of hunting and fishing for the public good. Amendment 2 passed by a margin of 81% to 19%. | ||||||||
Hawaii |
|||||||||
Idaho |
2012 HJR 2, Rights to Hunt, Fish and Trap: This proposed amendment would provide that the rights to hunt, fish and trap are a valued part of Idaho's heritage and would preserve these rights for the people of Idaho and manage these rights through the laws of the state. This amendment specifies that hunting, fishing and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife. This amendment does not create a right to trespass or affect rights to divert or appropriate water. This amendment also will not prevent the suspension or revocation of licenses issued by the state for hunting, fishing or trapping. The measure was passed by 73.4% of voters. | ||||||||
Illinois |
|||||||||
Indiana |
Question 1 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appears on the 2016 general election ballot. The official summary states the following: "Provides that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Indiana's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. Provides that the people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the general assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the general assembly to: (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Provides that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Provides that this constitutional amendment does not limit the application of any laws relating to trespass or property rights. This proposed amendment has been agreed to by one general assembly." A "yes" vote is in favor of such a constitutional amendment and a "no" vote is against amending the state constitution. | ||||||||
Iowa |
|||||||||
Kansas |
2016 Amendment 1: This amendment is to preserve constitutionally the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife subject to reasonable laws and regulations. The right of the public to hunt, fish and trap shall not modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other private property rights. A "yes" vote would constitutionally preserve the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife that has traditionally been taken by hunters, trappers and anglers. A "no" vote would provide for no constitutional right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. It would maintain existing state laws and rules and regulations governing hunting, fishing and trapping wildlife
|
||||||||
Kentucky |
2012 Amendment 1, Right to Hunt, Fish and Harvest Wildlife: This measure proposes to amend the Constitution of Kentucky to create a right to hunt, fish, and harvest nonthreatened species using traditional methods. It passed by 84.5% of the vote. | ||||||||
Louisiana |
2004 Ballot Issue 1, Constitutional Amendment to Preserve the Right to Hunt, Fish, and Trap: This ballot measure amended the state constitution after it was resoundingly approved in November of 2004 (by 81% of voters). The measure was initiated by the state legislature in Senate Bill 2 and was sent to the electors of the state for a vote. The measure on the official ballot stated that citizens were to vote FOR or AGAINST to amend the Constitution of Louisiana with the following proposition: "To guarantee the right of every citizen to hunt, fish and trap, subject to regulation, restriction, or prohibition as provided by law. (Adds Article I, 14 Section 27)." | ||||||||
Maine |
2014 Question 1: a citizen initiated referendum that will be appearing on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The referendum seeks to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt or pursue bear, the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, and the setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear. There are certain exceptions for scientific and research purposes and for public safety. The measure failed with 46.4% voting yes. 2004 Question 2: This Maine citizen initiated was defeated in the November 2004 election. The question posed to voters asked voters, "Do you want to make it a crime to hunt bears with bait, traps or dogs, except to protect property, public safety or for research?" Per the Maine Bureau of Corporations, Elections, and Commissions summary, the initiated bill was to prohibit the use of bait to hunt or attract bear, the use of a dog to hunt or pursue bear and the use or setting of a trap to hunt or capture bear except under certain circumstances (such as by state or federal employees to kill or capture depredating bears or by commercial timber operators).The measure failed with 47% of the vote. |
||||||||
Maryland |
|||||||||
Massachusetts |
2016 Question 3: This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals. | 2008 Question 3, Dog Racing: This would prohibit any dog racing in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. Approved by a margin of 65% to 35 %. 2000 Question 3, Dog Racing: This Massachusetts ballot question asked voters in 2000 whether they wanted to prohibit in Massachusetts any dog racing where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the State Racing Commission. The question failed with 49% voting "yes" and 51% voting "no" on the question. |
|||||||
Michigan |
2014 Proposal 14-1: This proposal for 2014 is a referendum of Public Act 520 of 2012, which authorizes the establishment of the first open hunting season for wolves. It will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure will UPHOLD Public Act 520, which allows the authorization of wolf hunting seasons in Michigan. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote. The measure failed with 45.0% of the vote. 2014 Proposal 14-2: This is the second wolf-related ballot measure for the November 4, 2014 election that also operates as a veto referendum. If the proposal is approved, it would uphold Public Act 21 of 2013, which authorizes the Natural Resources Commission to directly designate game species (including wolves) and determine hunting seasons. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote. The measure failed with 36.1% of the vote.
|
||||||||
Minnesota |
1998 Amendment 2, Preserve Hunting and Fishing Heritage: This ballot measure asked whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to affirm that hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good. The measure was passed in 1998 by 77.2% of voters. | ||||||||
Mississippi |
2014 HCR 30: This proposed amendment asks if the state shoulde tablish the Right to Hunt, Fish and Harvest Wildlife as a Constitutional Right. "The people have the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject only to laws and regulations that The measure passed with 88.0% of the vote. |
||||||||
Missouri |
2010 Proposition B ("Puppy Mill Initiative"): This 2010 ballot measure asked whether Missouri law shall be amended to: • require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles; • prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and • create a misdemeanor crime of puppy mill cruelty” for any violations? It was passed in 2010 by 51.6% of voters. |
1998 Proposition A: This ballot proposal asked, "[s]hall a statute be enacted making it a class D felony to bait or fight animals; permit such activities on premises you control; or promote, conduct, stage, advertise or collect fees for such activities; and making it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly attend baiting or fighting of animals; knowingly sell, offer for sale, or transport animals for such purposes; own, possess, manufacture or deal in cockfighting implements; bear wrestle; permit bear wrestling on premises you control; promote, conduct, stage, advertise, or collect fees for bear wrestling; or market, possess, train, or surgically alter a bear for bear wrestling?" It was passed in 1998 by 62.6% of voters. | |||||||
Montana |
2004 "C-41" Right to Hunt and Fish: This measure was an amendment to the constitution proposed by the legislature. The 2003 Legislature submitted this proposal for a vote. It would amend the Montana Constitution by adding a provision specifically to recognize and preserve the opportunity of Montana citizens to harvest wild fish and wild game animals. The amendment specifies that this new provision does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminish any other private rights. This amendment is effective upon approval by the electorate. It was passed in 2004 by 80.6% of voters. 2000 Initiative I-143, Game Farm Reform: This initiative would amend state law to prohibit all new alternative livestock ranches, also known as game farms. Existing game farms would be allowed to continue operating, but would be prohibited from transferring their license to any other party. They would also be prohibited from allowing shooting of game farm animals for any type of fee. The proposal also repeals provisions of the law concerning applications for expansion of game farms. If approved by voters, the measure would take effect immediately. It was passed in 2000 by 51.4% of voters. (Now codified at Mont. Code Ann. § 87-4-407 (2000)). |
2016 I-177: Generally prohibits the use of traps and snares for animals on any public lands within Montana and establishes misdemeanor criminal penalties for violations of the trapping prohibitions. I-177 allows the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to use certain traps on public land when necessary if nonlethal methods have been tried and found ineffective. I-177 allows trapping by public employees and their agents to protect public health and safety, protect livestock and property, or conduct specified scientific and wildlife management activities. A "yes" vote is in favor of the law that would prohibit the use of traps and snares on state public lands. A "no" vote is a vote against the proposed law that would prohibit the public from placing traps and snares on public lands. | |||||||
Nebraska |
2012 Amendment 2, Establish the Right to Hunt, to Fish, and to Harvest Wildlife: A constitutional amendment to establish the right to hunt, to fish, and to harvest wildlife and to state that public hunting, fishing, and harvesting of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. It passed with 76.7% of the vote. | ||||||||
Nevada |
|||||||||
New Hampshire |
|||||||||
New Jersey |
|||||||||
New Mexico |
|||||||||
New York |
|||||||||
North Carolina |
|||||||||
North Dakota |
2012 Initiated Constitutional Measure 3, Relating to the Practices of Farming and Ranching: This measure proposed in 2012 stated: "[t]he right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices." It passed by 66.9% of voters. | 2012 Prevention of Animal Cruelty Initiative, Measure 5: This initiated statutory measure would create section 36-21.1-02.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. This measure would make it a class C felony for an individual to maliciously and intentionally harm a living dog, cat or horse and provide a court with certain sentencing options. The measure would not apply to production agriculture, or to lawful activities of hunters and trappers, licensed veterinarians, scientific researchers, or to individuals engaged in lawful defense of life or property. It failed at the polls in 2012 (34.6% yes). | 2010 Initiated Statutory Measure 2 (Fee Killing of Certain Captive Game Animals Prohibited – Penalty – Exception): This measure provided: "[a] person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law." It failed at the polls (43.4%). 2000 Constitutional Measure 1: This amendment would provide that hunting, trapping, and fishing are a valued part of residents' heritage and will be preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good. It passed in 2000 (77% of votes). |
||||||
Ohio |
2009 Issue 2, Ohio Livestock Care Standards Amendment: This was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It proposed creating a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for establishing standards governing the care of livestock and poultry. The measure was approved by voters 63.66% to 36.34%. | 1998 State Issue 1: This state issue would have amended Section 1531.02 to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." It was rejected by voters by a measure of 40% to 60%. | |||||||
Oklahoma |
2002 State Question 687/Initiative Petition 365: This petition makes it a felony to instigate or encourage cockfighting, possess or train birds for cockfighting, or maintain a facility for cockfighting in the state of Oklahoma. The ballot proposal also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly be a spectator at a cockfight. It passed with 56% of the vote. |
2008 State Question 742: This measure would add a new section to State Constitution. It gives all people of this state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish by making hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish. The measure was approved 80% to 20%. 2002 State Question 698: This measure would have changed the number of legal voters needed to propose an amendment to the law of this state. At the time, 8% of the legal voters were required to propose a change in the law. This measure will change the number of legal voters to 15%. It would only apply to certain types of laws. It would apply to laws that would "do away with" methods for hunting, fishing, or trapping. It would also apply to laws that would do away with occupations dealing with animals. Also, it would apply to laws that would do away with sporting or entertainment events dealing with animals. It failed with 46.5% voting for the question. |
|||||||
Oregon |
2016 Measure 100: Amends Oregon law to expressly prohibit the purchase of, sale of, offer for sale of or possession of with intent to sell a “covered animal species” part or product. The measure defines “covered animal species” to mean any species of elephant, rhinoceros, whale, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, pangolin, sea turtle, ray and, with the exception of spiny dogfish, shark. The measure creates 9 exceptions to the prohibition. | 2000 Initiative 97: This initiative would have eliminated the use of steel-jawed, leghold or other body-gripping traps and poisons. It was defeated 39% to 61% in 2000. | |||||||
Pennsylvania |
|||||||||
Rhode Island |
|||||||||
South Carolina |
2010 Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish: The legislative summary for the proposed amendment states: "[a] joint resolution to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources." Passed with 89% of the vote. | ||||||||
South Dakota |
|||||||||
Tennessee |
2010 Hunting Rights Amendment: The proposed amendment on the 2010 ballot provides for the personal right to hunt and fish subject to state laws, regulations, and existing property rights. The measure also states that "traditional manners and means" may be used to take non-threatened species. Passed with 87.38% of the vote. | ||||||||
Texas |
2015 Proposition 6:
This proposed constitutional amendment recognizes the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation. It was a legislative referendum originally proposed as Senate Joint Resolution 22. The measure passed in November 2015 with 82% of the vote. |
||||||||
Utah |
1998 Proposition 5, "Resolution Establishing Wildlife Numbers": This legislative referendum would amend present provisions of the Utah Constitution regarding the power of the people of the state to initiate legislation and submit it to a vote of the people for approval or rejection by majority vote. This proposition requires a two-thirds vote in order to adopt by initiative a state law allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the taking of wildlife or the season for or method of taking wildlife. The measure passed with 56.1% of the vote. | ||||||||
Vermont |
|||||||||
Virginia |
2000 Ballot Measure 2: This measure creates a constitutional amendment providing: "The people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law." The measure passed with 59% of votes in 2000. | ||||||||
Washington |
2015 Initiative 1401: The measure would prohibit sale, purchase, trading, or distribution of elephant, rhinoceros, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, pangolin, marine turtle, shark, or ray species listed as endangered or vulnerable in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, including items made from listed species. Violations would be a gross misdemeanor or class-C felony. It would exempt certain distributions, including musical instruments and transfers for educational purposes. The measure passed by 71% voting "yes" for the initiative. |
2000 Initiative 713: This initiative would ban certain steel-jaw traps and certain poisons, but would allow trapping in certain circumstances. It still allows cage and box traps, suitcase-type live beaver traps, and mouse/rat traps. It is also a gross misdemeanor to poison any animal using sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) or sodium cyanide. The measure passed with 54% of votes, but there was an attempt to overturn the bill in 2001 (Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State, 71 P.3d 644 (2003)). | |||||||
West Virginia |
|||||||||
Wisconsin |
|||||||||
Wyoming |
2012 Amendment B: The adoption of this amendment will recognize and preserve the heritage of Wyoming citizens' opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife, subject to regulation as prescribed by law. It was passed by 84.8% of voters in 2012. |