(Beth Clifton collage)
Both sides on five Colorado ballot questions appeal to liberal/progressive voters, but the issues do not neatly split left/right
DENVER, Colorado––More questions involving animals will be before voters in Colorado on November 5, 2024 than in any other state.
(See Factory farming, lamb slaughter, fur sales, & pit bulls on 2024 ballots.)
Proponents of the “yes” side in each instance are evidently counting on the “liberal” and “progressive” majorities expected to turn out for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris to boost to passage state Propositions 127 and 129, Denver proposed ordinances 308 and 309, and Aurora question 3A.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Kamala Harris win in Colorado does not assure a win on ballot questions
Indeed, vice president Harris appears almost certain to carry Colorado, holding––according to multiple polls updated almost daily––an average 11% spread over former U.S. president Donald Trump.
But little or no polling has been done on the five non-partisan issues on the Colorado state, Denver, and Aurora ballots.
Further, voter opinion on the five issues is unlikely to follow partisan lines.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Proposition 129 may draw statewide support; Proposition 127 appears headed for sharp urban/rural divide
Proposition 129, to “establish a career pathway for veterinary professional associates,” profiled by ANIMALS 24-7 in Veterinary greed vs. animal health on the Colorado ballot, appears most likely to draw strong support from both Democrats and Republicans from both urban and rural voters.
The voting on Proposition 127, to prohibit puma and bobcat hunting, appears likely to follow the voting pattern on Colorado Proposition 114, the 2020 initiative mandate to restore wolves to Colorado.
Proposition 114 passed by just one percentage point, with a sharp divide between urban and rural voters, largely irrespective of party affiliation.
The 39 most rural of the 64 Colorado counties all passed resolutions opposing Proposition 114, but the 13 most heavily urban counties overwhelmingly favored it.
(See Puma hunting & pit bull fighting: cats & dogs on the Colorado ballot, and Wolves & mountain lions are dog & cats too, voters warn western states.)
(Beth Clifton collage)
Denver fur sales ban
The Denver Initiated Ordinance 308 ballot question reads, “Shall the voters of the City and County of Denver adopt an ordinance concerning a prohibition of fur products, and, in connection, beginning July 1, 2025, prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, display, sale, or trade of certain animal fur products in the City; and providing limited exceptions to the prohibition?”
Explained Kyle Harris for The Denverite on October 14, 2024, “Fur products used for Native American tribal, cultural or spiritual purposes would still be allowed. Used fur, also, could be sold, if the vendor was a company like a pawn shop or thrift store that does not primarily sell fur.
“The measure would still allow the manufacture of recycled products made exclusively from used fur.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
Exemption for Native Americans
Initiated Ordinance 308, Harris noted, “also includes exemptions for fur products ‘purchased for traditional tribal, cultural or spiritual purposes’ by a Native American tribe that is recognized by the state or federal governments, as well as fur products for activities ‘expressly authorized by federal or state law.’
“The law’s definition of fur,” Harris continued, “ does not include animal skin being converted into leather or skin that has hair, fleece or fur fiber completely removed. Cowhide with fur attached could continue to be sold. So could lambskin and sheepskin. Wool and pelts or skin of animals preserved through taxidermy would also still be allowed.”
Murphy Robinson lll
(Backcountry Hunters & Anglers Instagram photo)
“Hands Off My Hat” campaign talks through hat
Despite these broad exemptions, the campaign against Initiated Ordinance 308, calling itself “Hands Off My Hat,” relies heavily on two false contentions: that the ordinance would harm the Denver hunting, fishing, and cowboy culture, an appeal to the conservative side of the political spectrum, and that the ordinance would harm Native Americans, an appeal to the liberal/progressive side, voiced most prominently by former Denver deputy mayor Murphy Robinson.
Robinson, an African-American, conspicuously wore neither fur nor leather in the photo he submitted to accompany an October 18, 2024 guest column for the Colorado Sun in which he urged voters to reject Initiated Ordinance 308.
Robinson did, however, introduce himself as “a lifelong hunter, angler, former Deputy Mayor of Denver, trustee of the National Western Stock Show and newest member of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission,” aligning himself clearly with multiple animal use industries.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Initiated Ordinance 308 is not about feathers & cowboy hats
Robinson’s concluding argument asked, “How about our local retail businesses — custom hatmakers, fur artisans and local fishing shops, even your outdoor gear retailers that sell feather down coats and like equipment?”
Only so-called “fur artisans,” all of whom in Denver could probably fit into a single hot tub, would actually be significantly affected by Initiated Ordinance 308.
The fate of Initiated Ordinance 308 appears to depend on the extent to which liberal/progressive Denver voters are able to see through Robinson’s stalking horse claims.
Nearby Boulder, Colorado in 2021 passed an ordinance similar to Initiated Ordinance 308 by a 1% margin.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Will voters kill the slaughterhouse?
The Denver Initiated Ordinance 309 ballot question asks, “Shall the voters of the City and County of Denver adopt an ordinance prohibiting slaughterhouses, and, in connection, beginning January 1, 2026, prohibiting the construction, maintenance, or use of slaughterhouses within the City; and requiring the City to prioritize residents whose employment is affected by the ordinance in workforce training or employment assistance programs?”
The success or failure of Initiated Ordinance 309, assessed Grace Hussain, solutions correspondent for Sentient Media, “could have broad implications for the animal rights movement. While it’s certainly not the first time that animal advocates have sought to leverage ballot initiatives — there’s currently also an initiative to ban factory farms from Sonoma County, California — the Denver campaign could serve as a blueprint for future campaigns in cities across the country.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Testing research
“Pro Animal Future,” Hussain continued, the organization promoting both Initiated Ordinance 308 and Initiated Ordinance 309, “was started to test research generated by their sister organization, Pax Fauna. That research suggested that animal rights activists could garner success by shifting the framing of their work to ask for people’s votes instead of personal dietary change.”
Certainly it is easier to persuade people to undertake a quick one-time action such as casting a ballot, than to undertake a transformative change in lifestyle.
But whether the passage or defeat of Initiated Ordinance 309 will actually lastingly change anything, except that Denver residents will no longer have a slaughterhouse figuratively in their back yards, is questionable.
Isaiah 35:9: “No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
Meat Institute is fighting 309
Wrote Kyle Harris for The Denverite, “Effectively, this targets just one facility, Superior Farms’ Globeville factory. The plant, which processes [kills] roughly 1,500 lambs a day, would be shut down and roughly 160 people, mostly Spanish-speaking immigrants, would be out of work. Roughly half a million lambs [per year] would presumably be slaughtered elsewhere.
“The animal rights activists say ending the slaughterhouse will ‘halt mass-scale animal slaughter,’” Harris summarized, “and point to investigations at another Superior Farms factory that showed animal cruelty. Opponents of the slaughterhouse also point to Superior Farms’ violations of the Clean Water Act and ‘cruel working conditions.’
“The largest campaign donor against the ban,” according to Harris, “is the Meat Institute, a nonprofit trade organization that had contributed $250,000 as of September 30, 2024. Superior Farms had contributed $160,229 to the opposition campaign, and numerous industry-related groups also contributed tens of thousands of dollars,” for a total of almost twice the funding supporting the ban.
(Beth Clifton collage)
“The jugular vein of the sheep industry”
Said Colorado Livestock Association spokesperson Kenny Rogers to Hannah Metzger of Westword, of the Superior Farms slaughterhouse, “Essentially, that’s the jugular vein of the sheep industry here in the state.”
But is it really, or would lamb slaughter simply move elsewhere, perhaps closer to farmers or to the major markets?
Summarized Harris, “Denver’s slaughterhouse produces Halal-certified meat, based on humane treatment throughout the entire lifecycle of the animal in accordance with Muslim religious traditions,” the opposition campaign argues. “A world-renowned animal welfare expert [Temple Grandin] helped design the facility. USDA inspectors are on-site at all times, and the facility is routinely inspected by other independent animal welfare auditors from customers like Whole Foods.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
“Political correctness” may not decide the issue
As with Initiated Ordinance 308, the opposition to Initiated Ordinance 309 relies heavily on trying to persuade liberal/progressive voters that passage would be somehow discriminatory, and that ethnic discrimination is a more significant issue than cruelty.
The invocation of Whole Foods Markets is an appeal to the “politically correct,” a much larger segment of the liberal/progressive sector than vegans, vegetarians, and animal rights advocates of any stripe.
Meanwhile, not-in-my-back-yard voters often lean heavily conservative, more concerned with property values and development opportunities than with social justice issues, hinting that the outcome for Initiated Ordinance 309 may split diagonally across both the “left” and “right” spectrums.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Will Aurora repeal pit bull ban?
Asks Aurora ballot question 3A, “Shall the people of Aurora, Colorado agree that the restricted breed ban in the City of Aurora Code be repealed thereby allowing Aurora citizens to own American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier dogs within the city limits of Aurora, Colorado with the owners being subject to the requirements of the City Code, including Section 14-7 concerning keeping aggressive, potentially dangerous, or dangerous animals, that applies to all dogs?”
The Aurora city council approved the pit bull ban in 2005, after the existing “aggressive, potentially dangerous, or dangerous animals, that applies to all dogs” proved incapable of protecting the public from severely injurious attacks by pit bulls that were often the first known indications that the pit bulls had aggressive and dangerous propensities.
Pit bull advocates, after nine years of well-funded litigation and activism against the ban, won a public vote on it in November 2014. The ban was ratified by 64%.
(See Losing in Aurora, pit bull advocates set their dogs on us, Blue Buffalo, & Home 4 the Holidays.)
(Beth Clifton collage)
Aurora voters & city council went in opposite directions
The Aurora City Council in January 2021, however, voted 7-3 to rescind the pit bull ban. Aurora resident Matthew Snider in May 2021 filed a lawsuit against the city council decision, arguing that a vote of the people could only be overturned by a vote of the people.
Snider won the case before the Colorado Court of Appeals, leading to the pit bull ban going before Aurora voters on November 5, 2024 for the second time.
Meanwhile, just 21 days after the Aurora city council ordinance that temporarily undid the pit bull ban took effect, five-year-old Leonardo Duran was facially disfigured by only the third pit bull rehomed by the Aurora Animal Shelter.
(See Five-year-old disfigured by pit bull 21 days after Aurora ban is lifted.)
Pit bull advocates including employees of the Aurora Animal Shelter are pushing for the passage of Aurora ballot question 3A. Pit bull attack victim advocates have yet to mobilize an organized campaign against it.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Donald Trump praises pit bulls; Kamala Harris’ position is nuanced
At the national level, Donald Trump at an Atlanta campaign rally in August 2024 praised Georgia election officials who have allegedly tried to disqualify tens of thousands of African-American voters as “pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.”
Daughter-in-law Lara Trump is a longtime pit bull advocate.
Kamala Harris as a district attorney prosecuted two dog attack fatalities and enforced the San Francisco pit bull sterilization ordinance. As a U.S. Senator, Harris supported legislation which can expedite either adoptions or euthanasia of dogs impounded in dogfighting cases.
Beth & Merritt Clifton with friends.
(See Kamala Harris: long record on animal issues, including pit bull attacks.)
Please donate to support our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate/
The post What does the Harris/Trump vote mean for animals on Colorado ballots? appeared first on Animals 24-7.
