The Duncan Banner

Jul
20
2016
Page
0004
Clip
resized
48%

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Poteau Daily News

Editorial Round-up
Jul
20
2016
Page
0004
Clip
resized
41%

Ripple effects
Excerpts from recent editorials in Oklahoma newspapers.
The Oklahoman, July 17, 2016
Oklahoma voters should note potential ripple effects of two
state questions
The elevator pitch version of two state questions likely to
go before Oklahoma voters this fall sounds appealing. But the
potential unintended consequences of both measures are leading a growing list of community leaders to oppose them.
State Question 779 would add another percentage point to
Oklahoma state sales tax rate, increasing it by 22 percent. The
revenue generated would go to a wide range of broadly
defined education causes, although teacher pay alone is highlighted by many supporters.
State Question 777, known as Right to Farm, would
amend Oklahomas constitution to declare the Legislature
cannot abridge citizens rights to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.
Education and farming are popular causes in Oklahoma,
yet both measures are drawing opposition from unusual quarters. City officials in Edmond are poised to become the latest
group to formally oppose passage of both.
In doing so, Edmond officials will join the Oklahoma
Municipal League, the Municipal Electric Systems of
Oklahoma, the City Managers Association of Oklahoma and
the Municipal Clerks, Treasurers and Finance Officers
Association in opposing the sales tax increase.
Why? Because the ripple effects of that measures passage
could have severe consequences that impede civic progress
across Oklahoma.
Oklahoma is the only state where towns, cities and municipalities rely almost entirely on local sales tax revenue to
finance services including police, fire, parks and street maintenance. Oklahoma Citys renaissance, started with the MAPS
improvements, relied on a local sales tax increase approved by
voters.
But the average combined state-local sales tax rate in
Oklahoma is already 8.77 percent, the sixth-highest nationally.
If SQ 779 passes, Oklahoma will have the nations highest
state-local sales tax rate. Thats astounding when you realize
even states with no income tax would also have lower sales
taxes than Oklahoma.
Once Oklahoma hits that point, city officials fear local sales
tax initiatives will be much harder to pass, as will extensions
of existing local sales tax rates. In short, things like Oklahomas
MAPS improvements could quickly become a thing of the
past. Even basic infrastructure projects may become harder to
finance.
SQ 779 supporters claim it is a comprehensive plan. Yet
the only thing comprehensive about it is that it throws money
in all directions. Only around $245 million of $615 million
generated annually would go to teacher pay. The rest would be
divided among a host of K-12 programs, state colleges,
CareerTech and early childhood education.
In 2010 another measure, State Question 744, went before
voters. It called for increasing K-12 funding by at least $830
million annually. Its notable that leaders of the University of
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University opposed that plan
because it could have indirectly reduced funding for colleges.
Today, city and county governments are voicing comparable concerns about SQ 779.
Similar issues are being raised about the Right to Farm
amendments unintended consequences. City officials worry
the constitutional amendment is so broadly worded it could
allow owners of large parcels of land within city limits to
evade local regulation by proclaiming it agriculture land.
They also worry the measure could inadvertently impede
municipalities ability to obtain ample water supplies at reasonable prices.
The aforementioned are all valid questions that deserve
serious scrutiny. Come November, voters should rely on more
than bumper-sticker slogans to decide how to vote on these
state questions.

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Jul 2016 Page

20
B002

east is from the

west, so far hath
he removed our
transgressions
from us."

Clip
resized
46%

Stilwell Democrat Journal

Psalms 103:12,

Future of Oklahoma farming rides on controversial ballot measure

By Janelle Stecklein
CNHI State Reporter
Paul Muegge convened an eclectic group of neighbors
of his small farm in Tonkawa this week to talk about the
dangerous precedent that could be set if Oklahomans
pass a right to farm ballot measure this fall.
Among 20 people who showed up were a city manager,
retired school teachers and the owner of a meat market.
They listened as Muegge, 79, who grows hay and alfalfa,
and raises cattle, explained his worry that the measure
will stop the community from speaking up about activities that threaten the environment.
A week earlier, the state Farm Bureau convened its own
meeting, targeting nearly 200 younger, more urban
Oklahomans at a popular brewery in Oklahoma City.
The group, however, was urging people to support the
ballot measure.
The measure, Question 777, seeks to keep government
from blocking farmers rights to use technology without a compelling state interest, and it has turned
Oklahoma into a battleground.
Farmers, agriculture groups, animal rights activists and
environmentalists are already in the throes of a campaign, four months before the election.
That means raising big money. Two groups supporting
the measure, for example, reported raising more than
$500,000 in the first three months of the year.
Such right-to-farm proposals are cropping up in
response to a raft of other legislation that constricts farmers, by limiting the use of genetically modified crops or
restricting livestock practices that have been criticized as
cruel. North Dakota and Missouri have already adopted
right-to-farm measures.
At the center of the debate is the question of how much
control state lawmakers and local leaders should have in
regulating agriculture a lifeblood of rural Oklahoma.
Farm Bureau President Tom Buchanan said non-farmers, such as those who attended his groups meeting, will
ultimately decide the future of agriculture and livestock
production in Oklahoma when they vote.
Opponents of the right-to-farm initiative say the real
question is how much freedom is given to agribusiness
to operate as it pleases.
The Oklahoma campaign, they contend, is being closely
watched around the country by groups waiting to unveil
similar measures.
Were a testing ground here, said Muegge, a former
state senator who is now vice chairman of the state
Stewardship Council, which represents animal rights

advocates and environmental groups.

Maegge said the ballot initiative will handcuff the state.
You lock something into the Constitution like this, and
use the term compelling state interest, thats forever,
he said. Hows a local community going to be able to
pass ordinances? They wont be able to.
This just doesnt affect state government, he noted. If
affects all levels of government.
Supporters of the right-to-farm movement say most
government leaders are far removed from agriculture,
and theres little reason they should be restricting the
practices of farmers and ranchers.
Primarily we support this because it gives farmers and
ranchers the knowledge that they will be able to operate
in the future, said Buchanan, a cotton farmer and beef
producer in Altus.
In reality, the biggest winner on right-to-farm is the
consumer, he said. If there are individuals or organizations who do not agree with certain production methods
then we believe that your ability as a consumer
should be protected so that you can vote, so to speak, at
the grocery store.
The sides agree on little except that both blame outside
interests, either big business or animal rights groups, as
the source of controversy.
Ultimately they also agree that thousands of non-farmers will decide what shape agriculture takes in the state.
Only 2 percent of Oklahomans about 88,000 people
still work on farms or ranches, according to the Farm
Bureau. Thats slightly more than the national average of
1.5 percent.
We are certainly becoming a very distinct minority,
said Buchanan, who describes a big disconnect
between farmers and urbanites who consume their products.
In illustrating a reason to pass the initiative, Buchanan
describes a recent bill in the Statehouse to prohibit the
planting of genetically modified crops.
For years, Oklahoma farmers have used genetically
modified seed to grow cotton, corn, soybeans and
canola.
Stalks of the modified crops are more resistant to
drought and pests. The modified crops also have
increased yields.
Had the bill made it to Gov. Mary Fallins desk,
Buchanan said it would have crippled the agriculture
industry and caused a major impact economically and
on the availability of food.
Yet, such proposals are increasingly common.

States including California and Massachusetts have considered or adopted laws that dictate the kinds of cages
used to raise chickens, and limiting the products that can
be sold in grocery stores.
Buchanan fears that those kinds of efforts could easily
take root in Oklahoma, raising food prices and threatening the livelihoods of producers.
The right-to-farm measure, he said, allows
Oklahomans to continue to decide what Oklahoma agriculture looks like.
But Muegge and his group argue that state and local
government are the best watchdogs of agriculture.
He cites a 1992 announcement by an East Coast company that planned to bring sewage sludge to Oklahoma
and spread it on farmland.
The Legislature rebuffed the effort and only later
learned that the federal government had prohibited the
same company from dumping the sludge into the ocean.
They were selling it as this great agricultural fertilizer
for farmland, when in fact no one knew what was in it,
he said.
Muegge said he worries that, if the right-to-farm measure passes, the Legislature will have no ability to stop a
similar plan in the future.
The sludge was pitched as technology, and there would
be no compelling interest to block its use.
And now they want an immunity in the state
Constitution so that nobody can question what theyre
doing? he said, adding that such schemes could contaminate the water resources.
Roy Lee Lindsey, executive director of the Oklahoma
Pork Council, disputes that a right-to-farm law keeps
lawmakers from intervening in those kinds of cases.
If youre talking about protecting water, protecting our
natural resources, no, I dont think it makes it more difficult, said Lindsey, whose group represents about 2,000
people who work in the states pork industry and about
300 commercial swine facilities.
If clean water is not a compelling state interest, I dont
know what would be, he said. Folks that say this will
limit the ability to regulate clean water, theyre just trying to distract people from what the question really
does.
As Oklahomas cities grow, Lindsey said its easier to
forget how some decisions affect agriculture.
If lawmakers are worried about limiting the governments authority, he noted, they wouldnt have put this
measure on the ballot.
The initiative, he said, is good for rural Oklahoma.

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

The Westville Reporter

Future of Oklahoma farming rides on controversial ballot measure

Jul
21
2016
Page
0002
Clip
resized
34%

By Janelle Stecklein
CNHI State Reporter
Paul Muegge convened an eclectic group of
neighbors of his small farm in Tonkawa this
week to talk about the dangerous precedent
that could be set if Oklahomans pass a right to
farm ballot measure this fall.
Among 20 people who showed up were a city
manager, retired school teachers and the owner
of a meat market. They listened as Muegge, 79,
who grows hay and alfalfa, and raises cattle, explained his worry that the measure will stop the
community from speaking up about activities
that threaten the environment.
A week earlier, the state Farm Bureau convened
its own meeting, targeting nearly 200 younger,
more urban Oklahomans at a popular brewery
in Oklahoma City.
The group, however, was urging people to support the ballot measure.
The measure, Question 777, seeks to keep government from blocking farmers rights to use
technology without a compelling state interest, and it has turned Oklahoma into a battleground.
Farmers, agriculture groups, animal rights activists and environmentalists are already in the
throes of a campaign, four months before the
election.
That means raising big money. Two groups supporting the measure, for example, reported raising more than $500,000 in the first three months
of the year.
Such right-to-farm proposals are cropping up in
response to a raft of other legislation that constricts farmers, by limiting the use of genetically
modified crops or restricting livestock practices
that have been criticized as cruel. North Dakota
and Missouri have already adopted right-tofarm measures.
At the center of the debate is the question of how
much control state lawmakers and local leaders
should have in regulating agriculture a
lifeblood of rural Oklahoma.
Farm Bureau President Tom Buchanan said nonfarmers, such as those who attended his groups
meeting, will ultimately decide the future of
agriculture and livestock production in Oklahoma when they vote.
Opponents of the right-to-farm initiative say the
real question is how much freedom is given to
agribusiness to operate as it pleases.
The Oklahoma campaign, they contend, is being
closely watched around the country by groups
waiting to unveil similar measures.
Were a testing ground here, said Maegge, a
former state senator who is now vice chairman
of the state Stewardship Council, which represents animal rights advocates and environmental
groups.
Maegge said the ballot initiative will handcuff

the state.
You lock something into the Constitution like
this, and use the term compelling state interest,
thats forever, he said. Hows a local community going to be able to pass ordinances? They
wont be able to.
This just doesnt affect state government, he
noted. If affects all levels of government.
Supporters of the right-to-farm movement say
most government leaders are far removed from
agriculture, and theres little reason they should
be restricting the practices of farmers and ranchers.
Primarily we support this because it gives
farmers and ranchers the knowledge that they
will be able to operate in the future, said
Buchanan, a cotton farmer and beef producer in
Altus.
In reality, the biggest winner on right-to-farm is
the consumer, he said. If there are individuals
or organizations who do not agree with certain
production methods then we believe that
your ability as a consumer should be protected
so that you can vote, so to speak, at the grocery
store.
The sides agree on little except that both blame
outside interests, either big business or animal
rights groups, as the source of controversy.
Ultimately they also agree that thousands of
non-farmers will decide what shape agriculture
takes in the state.
Only 2 percent of Oklahomans about 88,000
people still work on farms or ranches, according to the Farm Bureau. Thats slightly more than
the national average of 1.5 percent.
We are certainly becoming a very distinct minority, said Buchanan, who describes a big disconnect between farmers and urbanites who
consume their products.
In illustrating a reason to pass the initiative,
Buchanan describes a recent bill in the Statehouse to prohibit the planting of genetically
modified crops.
For years, Oklahoma farmers have used genetically modified seed to grow cotton, corn, soybeans and canola.
Stalks of the modified crops are more resistant to
drought and pests. The modified crops also have
increased yields.
Had the bill made it to Gov. Mary Fallins desk,
Buchanan said it would have crippled the agriculture industry and caused a major impact
economically and on the availability of food.
Yet, such proposals are increasingly common.
States including California and Massachusetts
have considered or adopted laws that dictate the
kinds of cages used to raise chickens, and limiting the products that can be sold in grocery
stores.
Buchanan fears that those kinds of efforts could
easily take root in Oklahoma, raising food prices

and threatening the livelihoods of producers.

The right-to-farm measure, he said, allows Oklahomans to continue to decide what Oklahoma
agriculture looks like.
But Muegge and his group argue that state and
local government are the best watchdogs of agriculture.
He cites a 1992 announcement by an East Coast
company that planned to bring sewage sludge to
Oklahoma and spread it on farmland.
The Legislature rebuffed the effort and only later
learned that the federal government had prohibited the same company from dumping the
sludge into the ocean.
They were selling it as this great agricultural
fertilizer for farmland, when in fact no one knew
what was in it, he said.
Muegge said he worries that, if the right-to-farm
measure passes, the Legislature will have no
ability to stop a similar plan in the future.
The sludge was pitched as technology, and there
would be no compelling interest to block its
use.
And now they want an immunity in the state
Constitution so that nobody can question what
theyre doing? he said, adding that such
schemes could contaminate the water resources.
Roy Lee Lindsey, executive director of the Oklahoma Pork Council, disputes that a right-to-farm
law keeps lawmakers from intervening in those
kinds of cases.
If youre talking about protecting water, protecting our natural resources, no, I dont think it
makes it more difficult, said Lindsey, whose
group represents about 2,000 people who work
in the states pork industry and about 300 commercial swine facilities.
If clean water is not a compelling state interest,
I dont know what would be, he said. Folks
that say this will limit the ability to regulate clean
water, theyre just trying to distract people from
what the question really does.
As Oklahomas cities grow, Lindsey said its easier to forget how some decisions affect agriculture.
If lawmakers are worried about limiting the
governments authority, he noted, they wouldnt
have put this measure on the ballot.
The initiative, he said, is good for the backbone
of rural Oklahoma.
Janelle Stecklein covers the Oklahoma Statehouse for
CNHIs newspapers and websites.

Contact the Westville Reporter

at 918-723-5445
or e-mail us at
westvillereporter@yahoo.com

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

The Duncan Banner

Jul
22
2016
Page
0001
Clip
resized
28%

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Enid News & Eagle

Okla. voters
should note
effects of two
state questions
By The Oklahoman

Jul
22
2016
Page
A004
Clip
resized
26%

The elevator pitch version of two state questions

likely to go before Oklahoma
voters this fall sounds
appealing.
But the potential unintended consequences of both
measures are leading a growing list of community leaders
to oppose them.
State Question 779 would
add another percentage point
to Oklahoma state sales tax
rate, increasing it by 22 percent. The revenue generated
would go to a wide range of
broadly defined education
causes, although teacher pay
alone is highlighted by many
supporters.
State Question 777,
known as Right to Farm,
would amend Oklahomas
constitution to declare the
Legislature cannot abridge
citizens rights to employ
agricultural technology and
livestock production and
ranching practices without a
compelling state interest.
Education and farming are popular causes in
Oklahoma, yet both measures are drawing opposition
from unusual quarters. City
officials in Edmond are
poised to become the latest
group to formally oppose
passage of both state questions.
In doing so, Edmond officials will join the Oklahoma
Municipal League, the
Municipal Electric Systems
of Oklahoma, the City
Managers Association of
Oklahoma and the Municipal
Clerks, Treasurers & Finance
Officers Association in
opposing the sales tax
increase.
Why? Because the ripple
effects of that measures passage could have severe consequences that impede civic
progress across Oklahoma.
Oklahoma is the only
state where towns, cities
and municipalities rely
almost entirely on local
sales tax revenue to finance
services including police,
fire, parks and street maintenance. Oklahoma Citys
renaissance, started with the
MAPS improvements, relied
on a local sales tax increase
approved by voters.
But the average combined
state-local sales tax rate in
Oklahoma is already 8.77
percent, the sixth-highest
nationally. If SQ 779 passes,
Oklahoma will have the
nations highest state-local
sales tax rate. Thats astounding when you realize even
states with no income tax
would also have lower sales
taxes than Oklahoma.
SQ 779 supporters claim
it is a comprehensive
plan. Yet the only thing
comprehensive about it is
that it throws money in all
directions. Only around $245
million of $615 million generated annually would go to
teacher pay. The rest would
be divided among a host of
K-12 programs, state colleges, CareerTech and early
childhood education.
In 2010, State Question
744, went before voters. It
called for increasing K-12
funding by at least $830
million annually. Its notable
that leaders of the University
of Oklahoma and Oklahoma
State University opposed that
plan because it could have
indirectly reduced funding
for colleges.
Today, city and county
governments are voicing
comparable concerns about
SQ 779.
Similar issues are being
raised about the Right to
Farm amendments unintended consequences. City
officials worry the constitutional amendment is so
broadly worded it could
allow owners of large parcels
of land within city limits to
evade local regulation by
proclaiming it agriculture
land.
They also worry the
measure could inadvertently
impede municipalities ability
to obtain ample water supplies at reasonable prices.
The aforementioned
are all valid questions that
deserve serious scrutiny.
Come November, voters
should rely on more than
bumper-sticker slogans to
decide how to vote on these
state questions.

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Jul 2016 Page

22
A004

Clip
resized
73%

The Norman Transcript

Right to Farm or Harm? The basics

dds are youve heard

of State Question
777, also know by
supporters as Right to Farm
and detractors as Right to
Harm. But even if you have
heard about it, you may
not know what its about.
Below, well break down the
basics of SQ 777.

arbitrary standard, but its

common practice when determining the constitutionsentence could have a signicant impact on Oklaho- ality of a piece of legislation
to hold it to a standard of
mans, and not just farmers
judicial review. A compeland ranchers.
ling state interest is part of

the strict scrutiny standard,

t What does it mean?
the most stringent of these
Thats a great question and
tests.
depends on which side of
In other words, its much
the issue youre on. Its a
t What is it?SQ 777
fairly vague amendment, so harder to pass a law when
would amend the state
it has to meet this test. And
odds are much of it would
Constitution. The most
thats the whole point of
be dened through various
meaningful addition is this
legal challenges, should it be the amendment: to make it
sentence:The Legislature
more dicult to pass laws
passed by voters.
shall pass no law, which
relating to agriculture.
The phrase compelling
abridges the right of farmers state interest is a legal one.
and ranchers to employ
t Who is for it?OrganiFor the state legislature to
agricultural technology and pass a law regarding agricul- zations like the Oklahoma
livestock production and
Farm Bureau, the Oklahoma
tural technology, livestock
ranching practices without a production or ranching
Cattlemans Association and
compelling state interest.
several other farming and
practices, legislators would
Thats the heart of the
have to meet this legal test. ranching organizations.
Proponents say the
issue, and its fairly brief.
Compelling state interest may sound like an
amendment will prevent
So why all the fuss? That

O UR VIE W

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

the state government from

imposing burdensome
regulations on the farming
and ranching industry, allowing for greater and more
ecient production.

t Who is against it?Environmental groups like

the Sierra Club, as well as
the Cherokee Nation and
several groups that support
small and local farmers and
ranchers. Opponents say
the bill is too broad and will
hinder the states and local
municipalities abilities to
protect the environment
(including water quality),
shut down puppy mills and
keep large agribusiness
in check, among others
concerns.
State residents will vote
on the state question during
the general election Nov. 8.

The Shawnee News-Star

Voters should note

potential ripple
effects of two state
questions

Jul
22
2016
Page
A006
Clip
resized
32%

The elevator pitch version of

two state questions likely to go
before Oklahoma voters this fall
sounds appealing. But the potential
unintended consequences of both
measures are leading a growing list
of community leaders to oppose
them.
State Question 779 would add
another percentage point to Oklahoma state sales tax rate, increasing it by 22 percent. The revenue
generated would go to a wide range
RIEURDGO\GHQHGHGXFDWLRQFDXVes, although teacher pay alone is
highlighted by many supporters.
State Question 777, known as
Right to Farm, would amend
Oklahomas constitution to declare
the Legislature cannot abridge citizens rights to employ agricultural
technology and livestock production and ranching practices without
a compelling state interest.
Education and farming are
popular causes in Oklahoma, yet
both measures are drawing opposition from unusual quarters. City
RIFLDOVLQ(GPRQGDUHSRLVHGWR
become the latest group to formally
oppose passage of both state questions.
,QGRLQJVR(GPRQGRIFLDOV
ZLOOMRLQWKH2NODKRPD0XQLFLSDO
League, the Municipal Electric
Systems of Oklahoma, the City
Managers Association of Oklahoma
and the Municipal Clerks, TreasurHUV )LQDQFH2IFHUV$VVRFLDWLRQ
in opposing the sales tax increase.
Why? Because the ripple effects
of that measures passage could
have severe consequences that
impede civic progress across Oklahoma.
Oklahoma is the only state where
towns, cities and municipalities
rely almost entirely on local sales
WD[UHYHQXHWRQDQFHVHUYLFHV
LQFOXGLQJSROLFHUHSDUNVDQG
street maintenance. Oklahoma
Citys renaissance, started with the
MAPS improvements, relied on a
local sales tax increase approved by
voters.
But the average combined
state-local sales tax rate in Oklahoma is already 8.77 percent, the
sixth-highest nationally. If SQ 779
passes, Oklahoma will have the nations highest state-local sales tax
rate. Thats astounding when you
realize even states with no income
tax would also have lower sales
taxes than Oklahoma.
Once Oklahoma hits that point,
FLW\RIFLDOVIHDUORFDOVDOHVWD[
initiatives will be much harder to
pass, as will extensions of existing
local sales tax rates. In short,
things like Oklahomas MAPS improvements could quickly become
a thing of the past. Even basic
LQIUDVWUXFWXUHSURMHFWVPD\EHFRPH
KDUGHUWRQDQFH
SQ 779 supporters claim it is a
comprehensive plan. Yet the only
thing comprehensive about it is
that it throws money in all directions. Only around $245 million of
$615 million generated annually
would go to teacher pay. The rest
would be divided among a host
of K-12 programs, state colleges,
CareerTech and early childhood
education.
In 2010 another measure,
State Question 744, went before
voters. It called for increasing K-12
funding by at least $830 million
annually. Its notable that leaders
of the University of Oklahoma
and Oklahoma State University
opposed that plan because it could
have indirectly reduced funding for
colleges.
Today, city and county governments are voicing comparable
concerns about SQ 779.
Similar issues are being raised
about the Right to Farm amendments unintended consequences.
&LW\RIFLDOVZRUU\WKHFRQVWLWXtional amendment is so broadly
worded it could allow owners of
large parcels of land within city
limits to evade local regulation by
proclaiming it agriculture land.
They also worry the measure could
inadvertently impede municipalities ability to obtain ample water
supplies at reasonable prices.
The aforementioned are all
valid questions that deserve serious scrutiny. Come November,
voters should rely on more than
bumper-sticker slogans to decide
how to vote on these state questions.
From The Oklahoman, July 17,
2016

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

The Duncan Banner

Jul
23
2016
Page
A004
Clip
resized
29%

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Jul 2016 Page

23
A001

Clip
resized
91%

Weatherford Daily News

Page 7A

Okies split on right to farm

Heather Harmon
Staff Reporter

The debate over State Question 777

also known as Oklahomas Right to
Farm is becoming heated with an
official appeal filed earlier this month
to keep the question off state ballots in
November.
If approved, SQ 777 would add a new
section of law to the State Constitution.
The measure would prohibit legislature
from passing laws to regulate agriculture

without a compelling state interest.

Heather Hintz, an attorney
representing the opponents who filed
the appeal, called the bill a waste of
resources that would mislead voters.
Other opponents of the bill include
the Oklahoma Municipal League, the
Humane Society, the Cherokee Nation,
the Oklahoma Food Cooperative and
Oklahomans for Food, Farm and
Family.
Please see Farming,
Page 7A

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Jul 2016 Page

23
A007

Clip
resized From
72% A001

Weatherford Daily News

filed bankruptcy in the first six months of 2016, and

bankruptcies in 2015.

Farming

Continued from Page 1A

Oklahoma Municipal League President and

Weatherford Mayor Mike Brown said he opposed
the bill because he was concerned it would block the
state from protecting its water from pollutants.
I think the biggest concern is the acreage that
surrounds city limits, he said. Weve got some
area, potentially where somebody could put in a
feed lot, something right next to a residential area
if this passes. I think thats a concern for our water
supply.
According to the Humane Societys website, the
organization opposes the bill because it would
largely prevent voters and legislators from making
reforms that would benefit food safety, animal
welfare and the quality of our air and water.
The organization also states large agribusiness
corporations would benefit most from the bill.
Supporters of the bill include the Oklahoma Farm
Bureau, the Oklahoma Pork Council, Oklahoma
Cotton Council and Oklahoma Agribusiness Retailers
Association.
Oklahoma State House Representative Harold
Wright voted in favor for the measure to place the
proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.
He said it will protect the farming and ranching

industries and allow the industries to continue their

current production practices.
It doesnt mean they dont have to abide by the
law, but it holds everyone to a higher standard,
Wright said. It doesnt change the law; farmers will
still have the same standards out there.
Wright said the Humane Society has pushed for
laws in other states which have negatively affected
the agriculture industry.
California passed some of these laws, and its
changed the way farmers produced animals, and its
made it more difficult to farm and ranch in that state.
As a result, prices are higher, Wright said.
The Blue and Gold Sausage Company, which
specializes in school fundraising, has also showed
support of the bill. The company received some
criticism recently when it unveiled the new
design that featured a vote yes on 777 emblem.
Wednesday, the company said they would not place
the logo on future packaging.
We wont put our school districts in a difficult
position due to our support of a political issue. said
Brett Ramsey, co-owner of Blue and Gold Sausage
Company.

WOLES
Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

K
P
a
C
O
s
p
d
d
F
o
s
y
a
b
2
P
j
T

A
J
O
H
2
O
T
F
D
2

The Ardmoreite

OUR VIEW

Jul
24
2016
Page
A008
Clip
resized
65%

Political ads and

school fundraising
dont mix
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
First Amendment, United States Constitution

s Americans, we believe in free speech. Its a right

guaranteed by the First Amendment.
And in an interesting twist on that particular
freedom, Brett Ramsey, owner of the Blue & Gold Sausage
Co., recently labeled his sausage to promote the passage
of Oklahoma State Question 777, the Right to Farm and
Ranch Amendment.
Now, Ramsey can obviously use his product as a political
endorsement if he so chooses; however, the kicker to the issue
is that Blue & Gold sausage is sold exclusively to schools,
youth groups and other non-prot organizations to be resold as fundraisers.
Its a popular item, particularly in schools that have strong
ag programs. Consumers will tell you its good stuff and
a great way for kids to earn money for various groups and
programs.
But trying to use taxpayer-funded schools to promote a
political message just doesnt y with most people.
And thats why Muskogee Public Schools pulled the plug
on students selling the sausage as a fundraiser. We would
hope that other school districts considering the product
would make the same decision.
Thats a no-brainer as far as were concerned.
The Right To Farm Amendment has been controversial,
mainly because of some language issues. Proponents of the
measure say it would stop overreach from lawmakers and
regulators, while opponents say it would open doors to practices that harm animals and the environment.
Oklahomans are savvy voters and will weigh the SQ777
information and vote their decisions on Election Day.
So, while we appreciate Mr. Ramseys position on the
issue we lament his decision to force the issue with product
labeling.
And, we hope he changes back to the original label so students can once again sell the popular sausage and generate
much-needed funds for school organizations and equipment.
Thats the American way.

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

The Elk City Daily News

Jul
24
2016
Page
A004
Clip
resized
97%

Oklahoma voters should note

potential ripple effects of two
state questions
The Oklahoman
7KHHOHYDWRUSLWFKYHUVLRQRIWZRVWDWHTXHVWLRQVOLNHO\
WRJREHIRUH2NODKRPDYRWHUVWKLVIDOOVRXQGVDSSHDOLQJ%XW
WKHSRWHQWLDOXQLQWHQGHGFRQVHTXHQFHVRIERWKPHDVXUHVDUH
OHDGLQJDJURZLQJOLVWRIFRPPXQLW\OHDGHUVWRRSSRVHWKHP
6WDWH4XHVWLRQZRXOGDGGDQRWKHUSHUFHQWDJHSRLQWWR
2NODKRPDVWDWHVDOHVWD[UDWHLQFUHDVLQJLWE\SHUFHQW
7KHUHYHQXHJHQHUDWHGZRXOGJRWRDZLGHUDQJHRIEURDGO\
GHQHGHGXFDWLRQFDXVHVDOWKRXJKWHDFKHUSD\DORQHLV
KLJKOLJKWHGE\PDQ\VXSSRUWHUV6WDWH4XHVWLRQNQRZQ
DV5LJKWWR)DUPZRXOGDPHQG2NODKRPDVFRQVWLWXWLRQ
WRGHFODUHWKH/HJLVODWXUHFDQQRWDEULGJHFLWL]HQVULJKWVWR
HPSOR\DJULFXOWXUDOWHFKQRORJ\DQGOLYHVWRFNSURGXFWLRQ
DQGUDQFKLQJSUDFWLFHVZLWKRXWDFRPSHOOLQJVWDWHLQWHUHVW
(GXFDWLRQDQGIDUPLQJDUHSRSXODUFDXVHVLQ2NODKRPD
\HWERWKPHDVXUHVDUHGUDZLQJRSSRVLWLRQIURPXQXVXDOTXDUWHUV&LW\RIFLDOVLQ(GPRQGDUHSRLVHGWREHFRPHWKHODWHVW
JURXSWRIRUPDOO\RSSRVHSDVVDJHRIERWKVWDWHTXHVWLRQV
,QGRLQJVR(GPRQGRIFLDOVZLOOMRLQWKH2NODKRPD0XQLFLSDO/HDJXHWKH0XQLFLSDO(OHFWULF6\VWHPVRI2NODKRPD
WKH&LW\0DQDJHUV$VVRFLDWLRQRI2NODKRPDDQGWKH0XQLFLSDO&OHUNV7UHDVXUHUV )LQDQFH2IFHUV$VVRFLDWLRQLQRSSRVLQJWKHVDOHVWD[LQFUHDVH:K\"%HFDXVHWKHULSSOHHIIHFWV
RIWKDWPHDVXUHVSDVVDJHFRXOGKDYHVHYHUHFRQVHTXHQFHV
WKDWLPSHGHFLYLFSURJUHVVDFURVV2NODKRPD2NODKRPDLVWKH
RQO\VWDWHZKHUHWRZQVFLWLHVDQGPXQLFLSDOLWLHVUHO\DOPRVW
HQWLUHO\RQORFDOVDOHVWD[UHYHQXHWRQDQFHVHUYLFHVLQFOXGLQJSROLFHUHSDUNVDQGVWUHHWPDLQWHQDQFH2NODKRPD
Citys renaissance, started with the MAPS improvements,
relied on a local sales tax increase approved by voters.
Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

The Kingfisher Times & Free Press

Right to farm
stirring debate

Jul
24
2016
Page
0001
Clip
resized
77%

S.Q. 777 is 1 of 2 state

questions currently on
general election ballot
d
D
-

Q
y
h
e
y
al
H
Q

Opponents of State
Question 777, the right
to farm constitutional
DPHQGPHQWKDYHOHG
an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court
in an attempt to keep
it off the November
general election ballot.
Rep. Jason Dunnington, Oklahoma City
Democrat (District 88)
and a Cashion High
School graduate, is one
of the plaintiffs alleging that the question
is unconstitutional and
vague.
The state election
board will print ballots
for the general election
ballot next month, so
time is running out to
keep the question off

the ballot.
In May, a district
judge ruled against the
RULJLQDOODZVXLWOHGE\
the opponents, stating
that the question met
constitutional requirements.
S.Q. 777 would guarantee farmers the right
to operate their acreage free from changes
in state law without
compelling state interest.
The question specifically refers to legislative actions that negatively impact the rights
of farmers and ranchers
to employ agriculture
technology and livestock production and
ranching practices.

Dunnington said
that the amendment
was unnecessary in
Oklahoma where the
legislature has a history
of protecting farming
and ranching practices.
Proponents of the
amendment say that
could change in the
future and the constitutional guarantees
are vital in order for
agricultural producers
to be able to continue
producing the food and
EHUSHRSOHQHHG
Mickey Thompson,
executive director of a
group called Oklahomans for Food, Farm
and Family, said that

[See Ballot Page 10]

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Jul 2016 Page

24
0010

Clip
resized From
73%
0001

The Kingfisher Times & Free Press

Ballot
[Continued From Page 1]
group opposes S.Q. 777 on
the basis of water quality,
water rights and even voting rights.
In a column in the Lawton Constitution newspaper,
Thompson, former publisher of the Ada Evening
News, commented, Were
worried about the quality of
water going forward where
state government ... doesnt
have authority to enforce
pollution laws or rules.
Proponents say those
concerns are already covered under existing state
law.
Notables opposed to
S.Q. 777 are the Sierra Club,
an environmental activist
group with chapters in
the U.S. and Canada; the
Kirkpatrick Foundation of
Oklahoma City, which has
animal rights as one of its
issues; the Oklahoma Municipal League; the Oklahoma Farm & Food Alliance;
the Conservation Coalition
of Oklahoma; former state
Secretary of the Environ-

ment and Tulsa Water Commissioner Patty Eaton; and

former Oklahoma Attorney
General Drew Edmondson,
chair of the Oklahoma Stewardship Council.
S.Q. 777 is supported
by agriculture groups including; Oklahoma Farm
Bureau, American Farmers
and Ranchers, Oklahoma
Cattlemens Association,
Oklahoma Pork Council,
Oklahoma Agricultural
Cooperative Council, The
Poultry Federation, Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, Oklahoma Grain
& Feed Association, Oklahoma Sorghum Association and Oklahoma Cotton
Council.
Terry Detrick, president
of American Farmers and
Ranchers and spokesman
for S.Q. 777 passage, termed
the appeal of constitutionality of the Right To Farm
amendment an attempt to
confuse voters.
Theyre just trying to
keep it in the news and cause
doubt, he said.
They make all sorts of
baseless allegations; the ten-

dency of voters if they dont

understand a question is to
vote no or not vote at all.
In this particular case, Id
prefer they not vote (if they
are not clear about the question), Detrick said.
One other question has
already cleared all the hurdles necessary to appear on
the November ballot: S.Q.
776, which deals with the
death penalty. The question
sets these constitutional
requirements:
The Legislature is expressly empowered to designate any method of execution not prohibited by the
United States Constitution.
Death sentences shall
not be reduced because
a method of execution is
ruled to be invalid.
When an execution
method is declared invalid,
the death penalty imposed
shall remain in force until
it can be carried out using
any valid execution method, and
The imposition of a
death penalty under Oklahoma law - as distinguished
from a method of execution

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

- shall not be deemed to be

RU FRQVWLWXWH WKH LQLFWLRQ
of cruel or unusual punishment under Oklahomas
Constitution, nor to contravene any provision of the
Oklahoma Constitution.
Although the one-cent
sales tax proposal was not
included among the questions approved for a vote
on the Secretary of State
website last week, an AP
story said that the state Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge and the
question would appear on
the Nov. 8 ballot.
OCPA Impact argued
a brief description of the
proposal that appeared on
VLJQDWXUHSDJHVZDVLQVXIcient and its proposed ballot
title was misleading.
In a ruling handed down
Monday, the Supreme Court
said the groups challenge of
the tax plans signature page
description was untimely
because the signatures had
already been submitted
and counted. However, the
Supreme Court agreed the
ballot title was misleading
and rewrote it.

Muskogee Phoenix

Jul
24
2016
Page
A001
Clip
resized
36%

Sausage
company
abandons
wrapper
Packaging endorsing
agricultural proposal
raised school districts
ethics concerns
By D.E. Smoot
Phoenix Staff Writer

A company that produces

and packages a popular bulk
sausage sold throughout
the state for fundraisers for
schools
and
other
organizations
vacated
a plan
to proSubmitted photo
mote
pasBlue & Gold Sausage
sage of Co. will not use this
a con- wrapper after school
districts objected.
troversial
state question on its packaging.
Blue & Gold Sausage Co.
announced its decision after
concerns were raised about
whether public school students could sell a product
that promotes a political message. Those concerns came to
light after the Jones-based
company conducted a test
run with packaging emblazoned with a logo promoting
the passage of State Question
(See WRAPPER, 2A)

SQ777 foes
cheer as
Nebraskans
shift stance
Farming leaders there
withdraw support
for similar measure
By D.E. Smoot
Phoenix Staff Writer

Critics of a state question

that would grant constitutional protections to farming and
ranching practices applauded
agricultural leaders in Nebraska who withdrew support
for a similar initiative formerly pursued in that state.
The Nebraska Ag Leaders
Working Group issued a joint
position statement last week
that outlined its goal to unite
behind statutory policy solutions to ensure the future
viability and growth. The
position, which also won support from the Nebraska Farm
Bureau, was staked out after
a push for a Right to Farm
amendment failed to advance.
Oklahoma farmer Paul
(See FARMERS, 2A)

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Muskogee Phoenix

Farmers
Continued from Page 1A

Jul
24
2016
Page
A002
Clip
resized
56%
From
A001

Muegge, a former state

senator and co-chairman of the Oklahoma
Stewardship Council,
applauded the Nebraska
Farm Bureau for its decision. Muegge described
the decision as a move
that promotes the interests of Farm Bureau
members who are family
farmers rather than carries water for the corporate interests that back
measures such as State
Question 777.
SQ 777 takes away
the power of the Legislature and municipal
governments to regulate
agricultural practices to
protect water and other
natural resources and
individuals property
rights, Muegge said in
a news release. I can
understand why the corporations want to be free
from scrutiny and regulation, but I cannot understand why Oklahoma
should let them voters
should not be fooled by
this proposal.
Muegge contends SQ
777 would protect large
corporations at the expense of generational
farmers who have always
protected water, land and
livestock.
Save the Illinois River
President Denise Dea-

Wrapper
Continued from Page 1A

777.
The controversial
Right to Farm amendment would provide constitutional protections
to agricultural practices,
which supporters say is
needed to fend off environmental and animal
protection laws. Critics
contend SQ 777 would

y,
son-Toyne agrees with
Muegge, who she believes summed up the
situation quite well.
It appears that the
good folks in Nebraska
understand how dangerous a constitutional provision could be and how
harmful it would be to
family farms and ranchers, Deason-Toyne said.
Unfortunately, it appears
that Big-Agri and big
money are pushing the
Oklahoma Farm Bureau
to pursue this in Oklahoma State Question 777
takes away a lot of rights
and protections that are
vital to water quality and
quantity issues, environmental issues, and competition for family farmers
who will not be protected
against actions by corporate farms.
Although agriculture
leaders in Nebraska announced their plans to focus greater attention on
more immediate needs
of farmers and ranchers,
Oklahoma Agri-Women
doubled down. The organization announced on
Friday its endorsement
of SQ 777, citing safe,
healthy and affordable
food choices as its primary concern.
Our members are
college students, wives,
mothers, consumers, and
agricultural producers,
Oklahoma Agri-Women
President Kristi Bishop
said. Passing SQ 777

will ensure that farmers

and ranchers in Oklahoma can continue to provide safe, healthy and
affordable food choices
for all Oklahomans.
While various organizations continued to
stake out positions on
SQ 777, the Oklahoma
Supreme Court ruled
Wednesday that it would
retain jurisdiction for
the appeal of a district
judges order to dismiss
a lawsuit challenging
the ballot question. That
lawsuit was led by STIR
and three individuals in
Oklahoma County District Court.
The plaintiffs challenged the measure as
unconstitutional on its
face, outlining four arguments in support of their
petition for a declaratory ruling and injunction.
District Court Judge Patricia Parrish dismissed
the lawsuit on the
grounds that it was led
outside a 10-day window
allowed for challenges to
legislative referendums
and that she could nd
nothing to show SQ 777
is unconstitutional.
Parrish, however, did
acknowledge that a constitutional challenge
would be proper if SQ
777 makes it to the November ballot and voters
approve it.
Reach D.E. Smoot at
(918) 684-2901 or dsmoot
@muskogeephoenix.com.

protect corporate agriculture at the expense of

family farmers and the
environment.
We continue to support SQ 777, Blue &
Golds co-owner Brett
Ramsey states in a media release. But we
wont put our school districts in a difcult position due to our support
of a political issue.
Blue & Gold Sausage
Co. was founded by
Ramseys father, a voca-

tional agriculture teacher who used the product

to help raise money for
his FFA chapter. The
company, which has
been family-owned and
-operated since 1970,
sells its sausage and
other products exclusively to schools, youth
groups, and other nonprot organizations for
fundraising campaigns.
Reach D.E. Smoot at
(918) 684-2901 or dsmoot
@muskogeephoenix.com.

J
t
ye
ac
su
te
ho
gi
ca
pa
re
ev
Ch
its
ca
Ok
fe
Ch
se
tr
di
of
ed
sh
re
re
re
se
Te
ar
an

P
C

m
or
tif
do
ov
ar
on
wi
in
ve
pl
co
h
co

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Jul 2016 Page

24
A002

Clip
resized
43%

Sapulpa Daily Herald

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

rko Daily News

The Anadarko Daily News

Monday, J
Jul
25
2016
Page
001
Clip
resized
80%

Nebraska farmers
dont need, wont
seek right-to-farm
OKLAHOMA CITY, July 22,
2016 A coalition of Nebraska
agricultural groups has announced
it will no longer pursue a constitutional right to farm proposal in
that state. Oklahoma voters will decide a similar issue here in November with State Question 777.
We are united in our belief that
protecting our members interests
and the future of agriculture isnt
about a single ballot measure or initiative, Steve Nelson, Nebraska
Farm Bureau president, said in a
news release. He added that his organization would be working to ensure high property tax burdens
arent the reason families are
pushed out of agriculture.
Farmer Paul Muegge, a former
state senator and co-chair of the
Oklahoma Stewardship Council,
applauded the Nebraska Farm Bureau for its decision to work in the
interests of its members who are
family farmers, rather than carry
water for the corporate interests
who want state questions like 777
to pass in agriculture-producing
states.
SQ 777 takes away the power of
the legislature and municipal governments to regulate agricultural
practices to protect water and other
natural resources and individuals
property rights, Muegge said. In
this world of industrial agriculture,

it is large corporations who will

benefit from the unprecedented
blank check that SQ 777 gives
them, not generational farmers who
have always protected water, land
and livestock. I can understand why
the corporations want to be free
from scrutiny and regulation, but I
cannot understand why Oklahoma
should let them. Voters should not
be fooled by this proposal.
Numerous organizations and individuals, including many farmers,
are standing together to defeat State
Question 777.
Those opposing the proposal include Save the Illinois River, InterTribal Council of the Five Civilized
Tribes, Oklahoma Municipal
League, League of Women Voters,
Edmond City Council, Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma, Humane Society of the United States,
Humane Society Legislative Fund,
Bella Foundation, Oklahomans for
Food, Farm and Family, Oklahoma
Food Cooperative, Sierra Club,
Oklahoma Welfare League, Oklahoma Alliance for Animals and
Oklahoma Coalition of Animal
Rescuers.
The Oklahoma Stewardship
Council is a coalition of family
farmers, community leaders and
concerned citizens opposing State
Question 777. OSCs website is
www.votenoon777.com.

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.

Claremore Daily Progress

Jul
26
2016
Page
A002
Clip
resized
52%

SQ 777 foes cheer as Nebraska agricultural

leaders drop support for similar measure
By D.E. Smoot
Muskogee Phoenix

Critics of a state question that would

grant constitutional protections to farming and ranching practices applauded
agricultural leaders in Nebraska who
withdrew support for a similar initiative
formerly pursued in that state.
The Nebraska Ag Leaders Working
Group issued a joint position statement
last week that outlined its goal to unite
behind statutory policy solutions to
ensure the future viability and growth.
The position, which also won support
from the Nebraska Farm Bureau, was
staked out after a push for a Right to
Farm amendment failed to advance.
Oklahoma farmer Paul Muegge, a
former state senator and co-chairman of
the Oklahoma Stewardship Council,
applauded the Nebraska Farm Bureau
for its decision. Muegge described the
decision as a move that promotes the
interests of Farm Bureau members who
are family farmers rather than carries
water for the corporate interests that
back measures such as State Question
777.
SQ 777 takes away the power of the
Legislature and municipal governments
to regulate agricultural practices to protect water and other natural resources
and individuals property rights,
Muegge said in a news release. I can

understand why the corporations want to

be free from scrutiny and regulation, but
I cannot understand why Oklahoma
should let them voters should not be
fooled by this proposal.
Muegge contends SQ 777 would protect large corporations at the expense of
generational farmers who have always
protected water, land and livestock.
Save the Illinois River President
Denise Deason-Toyne agrees with
Muegge, who she believes summed up
the situation quite well.
It appears that the good folks in
Nebraska understand how dangerous a
constitutional provision could be and
how harmful it would be to family farms
and ranchers, Deason-Toyne said.
Unfortunately, it appears that Big-Agri
and big money are pushing the
Oklahoma Farm Bureau to pursue this in
Oklahoma  State Question 777 takes
away a lot of rights and protections that
are vital to water quality and quantity
issues, environmental issues, and competition for family farmers who will not
be protected against actions by corporate
farms.
Although agriculture leaders in
Nebraska announced their plans to focus
greater attention on more immediate
needs of farmers and ranchers,
Oklahoma Agri-Women doubled down.
The organization announced on Friday
its endorsement of SQ 777, citing safe,

healthy and affordable food choices as

its primary concern.
Our members are college students,
wives, mothers, consumers, and agricultural producers, Oklahoma AgriWomen President Kristi Bishop
said. Passing SQ 777 will ensure that
farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma can
continue to provide safe, healthy and
affordable food choices for all
Oklahomans.
While various organizations continued to stake out positions on SQ 777, the
Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled
Wednesday that it would retain jurisdiction for the appeal of a district judges
order to dismiss a lawsuit challenging
the ballot question. That lawsuit was
filed by STIR and three individuals in
Oklahoma County District Court.
The plaintiffs challenged the measure
as unconstitutional on its face, outlining
four arguments in support of their petition for a declaratory ruling and injunction. District Court Judge Patricia
Parrish dismissed the lawsuit on the
grounds that it was filed outside a 10-day
window allowed for challenges to legislative referendums and that she could
find nothing to show SQ 777 is unconstitutional.
Parrish, however, did acknowledge
that a constitutional challenge would be
proper if SQ 777 makes it to the
November ballot and voters approve it.

Property of OPS News Tracker and members of the Oklahoma Press Association.