Presented
in this report is a summary of the 2003 environmental
ballot measures, including those voted on in both
October and November. This year’s ballots
largely dealt with funding for projects and activities
that impact the environment, such as open space
preservation, wastewater treatment, coastal restoration,
and others. In total, six of the seven ballot initiatives
reported here were passed by the voters.
This
report also includes updates on past environmental
ballot measures, as well as a summary of measures
being considered for 2004.
back
to top
October
2003 Measures
Louisiana
Constitutional Amendment 1
(Passed by 67% to 33%)
This
amendment establishes and maintains the Wetlands
Conservation and Restoration Fund with $35 million
annually from the Mineral Revenue Audit and Restoration
Fund.
Louisiana
Constitutional Amendment 2
(Passed by 67% to 33%)
This
amendment creates the Louisiana Coastal Restoration
Fund from monies left after tobacco litigation.
Louisiana
Constitutional Amendment 3
(Passed by 61% to 39%)
This
amendment authorizes the legislature to limit the
payout given to compensate landowners for property,
if the property is damaged as a result of the protection
or restoration of wetlands.
back
to top
Measures
Certified for the November 2003 Ballot
Colorado
Referendum A
(Failed by 65% to 35%)
Governor
Bill Owens’ Referendum A allows towns, water
authorities, and other agencies to issue up to $2
billion in bonds to upgrade older water storage
facilities and build new storage facilities.
New
Jersey Public Question 1
(Passed by 65% to 35%)
This
measure amends the constitution to allocate increased
funds for open space, by increasing the bonding
authority of the Garden State Preservation Trust
by $150 million.
New
Jersey Public Question 2
(Passed by 61% to 39%)
This
constitutional amendment allows portions of the
Corporation Business Tax revenues to be allocated
for the costs of remediating hazardous substances
discharges.
New
Jersey Public Question 3
(Passed by 59% to 41%)
The
“Dam, Lake, Stream, Flood Control, Water Resources,
and Wastewater Treatment Project Bond Act of 2003”
authorizes the sale of $200 million in state general
obligation bonds to finance flood control projects,
water resources projects, and wastewater treatment
system projects; to repair dams; and, to restore
lakes and streams.
back
to top
Updates
on Past Ballot Measures
California
Proposition 4 (1998)
In
1998, voters passed Proposition 4, which banned
the use of body-gripping traps to kill wildlife.
The legality of the Proposition was challenged in
federal court and, in December 2002, the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals held that the Proposition
is preempted by the federal Endangered Species Act.
National Audubon Soc’y, Inc. v. California,
307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court ruled that
the state law cannot conserve predators at the expense
of endangered species. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife
Service can use body-gripping traps to capture animals
that are preying on endangered species in national
wildlife refuges in California.
Montana
Initiative 137 (1998)
I-137,
which was passed by voters in 1998, implemented
a ban on cyanide heap and vat leach mine operations.
In the 2003 session, legislators introduced SB 436,
which would have asked voters to again allow these
operations with new environmental limitations. In
February, the bill was indefinitely postponed by
the Senate Committee on Finance.
The
cyanide mining ban initiative has been challenged
in the Montana court system as well as in the legislature.
In December 2002, a state district judge ruled that
I-137 did not violate any constitutional rights
of Canyon Resources, a mining company seeking to
use cyanide in its gold mines. The district judge
also ruled that the company should not be compensated
for the loss of its project. Canyon Resources has
appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court.
Montana
Initiative 143 (2000)
In
2000, Montana voters passed I-143, which severely
restricted the operation of game farms, or “alternative
livestock” operations. During the 2003 session,
HB 379 was introduced, which would have effectively
repealed I-143. The bill was tabled in March, however,
in the House Committee on Appropriations.
I-143
was also challenged in federal court, when game
farmers brought suit alleging that they had been
stripped of their livelihood and constitutional
rights. However, in September, a federal district
court judge dismissed the suit, holding that the
farmers have no “absolute or unfettered right
to operate an alternative livestock ranch as they
see fit,” and that I-143 “advances legitimate
non-illusory state interests in protecting Montana
wildlife.” Sherry Devlin, “Game
Farm Ruling Favors I-143,” The Missoulian,
17 September 2003.
South
Dakota Constitutional Amendment E (1998)
South
Dakota voters approved Constitutional Amendment
E in 1998, which prohibited large corporations from
farming new land or buying, leasing, or contracting
for any new interest in farm lands, farming, or
livestock production. The goal of the amendment
was to protect local family agriculture in the state.
However, in August 2003, the U.S. Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled the amendment unconstitutional.
South Dakota Farm Bureau, Inc. v. Hazeldine,
2003 WL 21961138 (8th Cir. 2003). The Court held
that the amendment was motivated by a discriminatory
purpose; and, since South Dakota could not show
that it had no other method by which to advance
its local interests, the amendment was unconstitutional
under the dormant commerce clause.
Washington
Initiative 713 (2000)
In
2000, voters passed I-713, which banned the use
of body-gripping traps and certain poisons to kill
wildlife. During the 2003 session, the state legislature
passed SB 5179, which would have repealed I-713.
However, in May of this year, Governor Gary Locke
vetoed the bill and upheld the voters’ will.
I-713
survived an attack in the courtroom as well as in
the legislature. In June, the Washington Supreme
Court ruled that I-713 is not unconstitutionally
ambiguous in rendering existing citizens’
rights erroneous. Rather, it merely restricts the
methods allowed for exercising existing rights to
control wildlife. Citizens for Responsible Wildlife
Management v. State of Washington, 149 Wash.2d
622, 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003). Further, the Initiative
is not unconstitutionally titled, as the bill’s
title encompasses only one subject, as required
under the State Constitution.
back
to top