Massachusetts Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment, Question 3 (2016)

Massachusetts Question 3
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Food and agriculture and Treatment of animals
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

The Massachusetts Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment, also known as Question 3, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this proposal to prohibit the sale of eggs, veal, or pork of a farm animal confined in spaces that prevent the animal from lying down, standing up, extending its limbs, or turning around.

A "no" vote opposed this proposal.

Aftermath

Senate Bill 2603 (2021)

On December 20, 2021, the Massachusetts General Court passed Senate Bill 2603 (SB 2603), which amends Question 3 to update the standards for housing egg-laying hens and delay by seven and half months the start of a ban on the sale of pork products that do not meet the state's production standards. The bill was signed by the governor on December 22, 2021, and took effect on January 1, 2022.

SB 2603 would also transfer regulatory responsibility from the attorney general's office to the state Department of Agricultural Resources. The bill would prohibit the animal confinement in a "cruel manner" defined as "(i) a calf raised for veal or a breeding pig in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs or turning around freely; or (ii) an egg laying-hen in an enclosure other than a cage-free housing system" or a housing system that doesn't meet the standards established by the law.^[1]

The Humane Society, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rescue League of Boston, and Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said in a joint statement, "With passage of S. 2603, the Massachusetts legislature strengthened the existing law, passed at the ballot as Question 3 in 2016, to now mandate cage-free housing with critical behavioral enrichments for the birds, such as nest boxes, perches, and dust-bathing and scratching areas. Importantly, the legislature also expanded application of Question 3's protections to hens raised for liquid eggs—a move that will protect at least two million more hens each year."^[2]

Bradley Miller, the executive director of the Humane Farming Association, opposed the legislative alteration, saying it was "a devastating setback to farm animal protection and a major betrayal of Massachusetts voters." Miller said, "The egg industry and a few co-opted animal groups falsely portray this cruel reduction in space down to a mere one square foot per hen as an enhancement to Question 3. In reality, this is an outright repeal and replacement of Question 3's central and most important animal anti-cruelty provision."^[2]

Massachusetts Restaurant Association v. Healey (2022)

---

This article contains a developing news story. Ballotpedia staff are checking for updates regularly. To inform us of new developments, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

---

On August 3, 2022, Massachusetts Restaurant Association sued Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and John Lebeaux, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The lawsuit argued that the law and implementing regulations violated the Commerce Clause because they impose a burden on interstate commerce. On August 11, 2022, the court granted a stay until 30 days following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the Proposition 12 case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. The court said the outcome “may generate controlling law that will substantially clarify, if not govern in whole or in part, the legal issues in this action.”^[3]

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and dismissed the challenge against California’s Proposition 12. On July 11, 2023, District Judge Margaret R. Guzman extended a stay on enforcing the law, which was set to expire on July 12. The stay has been extended until August 23 to allow the petitioners to comply with the law.^[4]

Indiana et al. v. Massachusetts

In December 2017, 13 states filed a lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court against the state of Massachusetts, alleging that Question 3 was unlawful because the initiative attempted to "dictate how other states choose to regulate business operations and manufacturing processes within their own borders" in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.^[5][6]

On January 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the states permission to file a complaint against Massachusetts. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a statement that he would have allowed the complaint to be filed. The Supreme Court also rejected a similar lawsuit against California.^[7]

Election results

Question 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		2,530,143	77.64%
No		728,654	22.36%

Election results from Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth

Overview

This law prohibited breeding pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens from being held in confined spaces. Question 3 defined confined as meaning that which "prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely."^[8] This law also applied to business owners who knowingly sell pork, veal, or eggs from animals held in this way, even if the source is outside of Massachusetts.

Exceptions to this confinement rule include temporary holding cells for transportation, fairs, medical research, veterinary exams, and other purposes.

The measure authorized the state attorney general to administer the law, which comes with a maximum fine of $1,000 could be levied for each violation.

Supporters such as the MSPCA said that the measure seeks to avoid needless suffering of animals raised for eggs and slaughter, while many opponents say that these practices are generally not practiced in Massachusetts in the first place.

Background

In the past three decades, eight other measures dealing with treatment of animals have appeared on Massachusetts ballots. Question 3 in 1988 was defeated and would have regulated the treatment of farm animals. Question 1 in 1996 was approved and prohibited the use of leghold traps, snares, and the use of dogs and bait in hunting bear or bobcats. Question 3 in 2000 was defeated by less than a two percent margin and would have prohibited dog races where betting or wagering occurs. Question 3 in 2008 was approved and meant that the state's two greyhound racetracks, Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park and Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere, had to close by January 1, 2010.

Similar 2016 measures in other states dealing with the treatment of animals are the Montana Animal Trap Restrictions Initiative, I-177 and the Oregon Wildlife Trafficking Prevention, Measure 100 (2016). The Montana Animal Trap Restrictions Initiative, I-177 would prohibit individuals from using animal traps and snares on state public lands. The Oregon Wildlife Trafficking Prevention, Measure 100 (2016) would prohibit the sale of products and parts of 12 types of endangered animals in Oregon: rhino, cheetah, tiger, sea turtle, lion, elephant, whale, shark, pangolin, jaguar, ray, and leopard.

2016 measures
November 8
Question 1 d
Question 2 d
Question 3 a
Question 4 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question was on the ballot as follows:^[9]

“

Question 3. Law proposed by initiative petition. Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?[10]

”

Ballot summary

The summary was as follows:^[8]

“

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. The proposed law’s confinement prohibitions would not apply during transportation; state and county fair exhibitions; 4-H programs; slaughter in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; medical research; veterinary exams, testing, treatment and operation if performed under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian; five days prior to a pregnant pig’s expected date of giving birth; any day that pig is nursing piglets; and for temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes not to exceed six hours in any twenty-four hour period. The proposed law would create a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation and would give the Attorney General the exclusive authority to enforce the law, and to issue regulations to implement it. As a defense to enforcement proceedings, the proposed law would allow a business owner or operator to rely in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee of compliance by a supplier. The proposed law would be in addition to any other animal welfare laws and would not prohibit stricter local laws. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. A Yes Vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending the limbs, or turning around freely. A No Vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals.[10]

”

Full text

The full text of the measure is as follows:^[11]

“ An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority: Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act Section 1. The purpose of this Act is to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of Massachusetts consumers, increase the risk of foodborne illness, and have negative fiscal impacts on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Section 2. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for a farm owner or operator within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to knowingly cause any covered animal to be confined in a cruel manner. Section 3. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, it shall be unlawful for a business owner or operator to knowingly engage in the sale within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of any: (A) Shell egg that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the product of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner. (B) Whole veal meat that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner. (C) Whole pork meat that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner, or is the meat of the immediate offspring of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner. Section 4. For the purposes of this Act, a covered animal shall not be deemed to be “confined in a cruel manner” during: (A) Transportation. (B) State or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs, and similar exhibitions. (C) Slaughter in accordance with any applicable laws, rules, and regulations. (D) Medical research. (E) Examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for veterinary purposes, but only if performed by or under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian. (F) The five (5) day period prior to a breeding pig’s expected date of giving birth, and any day that the breeding pig is nursing piglets. (G) Temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes for no more than six (6) hours in any twenty-four (24) hour period. Section 5. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (A) “Breeding pig” means any female pig of the porcine species kept for the purpose of commercial breeding. (B) “Business owner or operator” means any person who owns or controls the operations of a business. (C) “Calf raised for veal” means any calf of the bovine species kept for the purpose of commercial production of veal meat. (D) “Covered animal” means any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen that is kept on a farm. (E) “Confined in a cruel manner” means confined so as to prevent a covered animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs, or turning around freely. (F) “Egg-laying hen” means any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of commercial egg production. (G) “Enclosure” means any cage, crate, or other structure used to confine a covered animal or animals. “Enclosure” includes what is commonly described as a “gestation crate” or “stall” for pigs during pregnancy, a “veal crate” for calves raised for veal, and a “battery cage, enriched cage, or colony cage” for egg-laying hens. (H) “Farm” means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or animal products used for food; and does not include live animal markets or establishments at which inspection is provided under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. (I) “Farm owner or operator” means any person who owns or controls the operations of a farm. (J) “Fully extending the animal's limbs” means fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure. In the case of egg-laying hens, fully extending the animal’s limbs means fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens and having access to at least 1.5 square feet of usable floor space per hen. (K) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, limited liability corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, association, or other legal entity. (L) “Pork meat” means meat, as defined in 105 CMR 531.012 as of June 1, 2015, of a pig of the porcine species, intended for use as human food. (M) “Sale” means a commercial sale by a business that sells any item covered by Section 3, but does not include any sale undertaken at an establishment at which inspection is provided under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. For purposes of this section, a sale shall be deemed to occur at the location where the buyer takes physical possession of an item covered by Section 3. (N) “Shell egg” means a whole egg of an egg-laying hen in its shell form, intended for use as human food. (O) “Turning around freely” means turning in a complete circle without any impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an enclosure or another animal. (P) “Uncooked” means requiring cooking prior to human consumption. (Q) “Usable floor space” means the total square footage of floor space provided to each hen, as calculated by dividing the total square footage of floor space provided to hens in an enclosure (including both ground space and elevated flat platforms) by the number of hens in that enclosure. (R) “Veal meat” means meat, as defined in 105 CMR 531.012 as of June 1, 2015, of a calf raised for veal, intended for use as human food. (S) “Whole pork meat” means any uncooked cut of pork (including bacon, ham, chop, ribs, riblet, loin, shank, leg, roast, brisket, steak, sirloin or cutlet) that is comprised entirely of pork meat, except for seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives and similar meat additives. Whole pork meat does not include combination food products (including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hot dogs, or similar processed or prepared food products) that are comprised of more than pork meat, seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives and similar meat additives. (T) “Whole veal meat” means any uncooked cut of veal (including chop, ribs, riblet, loin, shank, leg, roast, brisket, steak, sirloin or cutlet) that is comprised entirely of veal meat, except for seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives and similar meat additives. Whole veal meat does not include combination food products (including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hot dogs, or similar processed or prepared food products) that are comprised of more than veal meat, seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives and similar meat additives. Section 6. The Attorney General shall have exclusive authority to enforce the provisions of this Act. Each violation of this Act shall be punished by a civil fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Attorney General may also seek injunctive relief to prevent further violations of this Act. Section 7. It shall be a defense to any action to enforce this Act that a business owner or operator relied in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee by the supplier that the shell egg, whole pork meat, or whole veal meat at issue was not derived from a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner, or from the immediate offspring of a female pig that was confined in a cruel manner. Section 8. The provisions of this Act are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other laws protecting animal welfare. This Act is not intended, and should not be construed to limit any other state law or rules protecting the welfare of animals or to prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations that are more stringent than this section. Section 9. The provisions of this Act are severable and if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Act, or an application thereof, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application adjudged invalid. Section 10. The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act on or before January 1, 2020. Section 11. Sections 2-7 of this Act shall take effect on January 1, 2022.[10] ”

Support

Yes on 3 led the support campaign for Question 3.

Supporters

For a full list of endorsements, see the Yes on 3 website here.

Arguments in favor

Stephanie Harris, Question 3's campaign director and Massachusetts state director for the Humane Society of the U.S., said,^[15]

“

Right now farm animals are kept in close confinement, crammed in cages so small they can't turn around. This ballot measure will go a long way to improving their welfare.[10]

”

Barry Kellogg, a member of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association board of directors, said,^[16]

“

On industrialized farms, calves raised for veal and breeding pigs are confined to crates measuring only slightly larger than their own bodies. They are so tightly penned they cannot even turn around for months at a time. Egg-laying hens are kept in equally poor conditions: barren wire cages with less space per hen than a single letter-size piece of writing paper. Most of us support reforms that would provide a more humane living environment for these animals. In addition, as a veterinarian, I know there is solid scientific evidence supporting such reforms — science demonstrating that freedom of movement and the expression of natural behavior are necessary prerequisites for an acceptable quality of life. Alternatives to these extreme confinement methods already exist, are in widespread commercial use and are economically viable. As Massachusetts residents, we have an opportunity to take a stand in support of more humane housing by supporting an upcoming ballot measure, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, which will require that pigs, calves and hens simply have room to stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs.[10]

”

Matt Bershadker, president and chief executive of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said,^[13]

“

This measure asserts that society will no longer accept the abject suffering of animals as a pathway to profit.[10]

”

Paul Shapiro, vice president of farm animal protection at the Humane Society, said food prices could rise a little, but not by much. He argued:^[17]

“

There is no doubt that when you account for the increased hidden costs [of caged hens] like increased animal cruelty and increased food safety risk, it’s certainly worth it. ... There have to be some rules with regard to our conduct towards those who can’t defend themselves. You’re talking about a cost that is extremely modest by any account with regard to not keeping animals locked in tiny cages.[10]

”

Melissa Ghareeb, former barn manager of MSPCA-Nevin's Farm, said,^[18]

“

The MSPCA has long advocated to end practices that cause needless pain, suffering, and stress. That’s why the organization is calling for compliance with this modest animal welfare standard. Voters can stop cruelty in its tracks, by voting yes, for our own health, for the preservation of our environment, and to eliminate the worst kind of suffering endured by animals.[10]

”

Opposition

No on Question 3 and Citizens Against Food Tax Injustice led the opposition campaign for Question 3.^[19][20]

Opponents

• Chad Gregory, president and chief executive of United Egg Producers^[12]
• Rich Bonanno, president of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation^[12]
• Kay Johnson Smith, president and chief executive of the Animal Agriculture Alliance^[13]
• National Pork Producers Council^[13]
• Jon B. Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts^[13]
• National Association of Egg Farmers^[21]
• Massachusetts Farm Bureau^[19]
• New England Brown Egg Council^[19]
• Retailers Association of Massachusetts^[19]

Arguments against

Summary

Opponents make the following arguments against Question 3:

• Question 3 would raise the cost of eggs and pork, negatively affecting taxpayer funded assistance programs and low-income individuals and families
• Question 3 would endanger the health of farm animals and the people who care for them

Individual arguments

Chad Gregory argued,^[13]

“

This is taking the affordable, high-quality protein egg away from the family of four that doesn’t make a lot of money.[10]

”

Rich Bonanno said,^[13]

“

What’s significant about this ballot question is it not only would ban practices in the state of Massachusetts which largely don’t even exist [here].  ... What’s significant about it is it bans products produced outside the state using those practices.[10]

”

Paul Sauder, a top executive at Sauder’s Eggs, argued,^[17]

“

There are a lot of people out there that are going to have difficulty paying that increased cost for that dozen of eggs. So what are they going to do? They’re going to buy less eggs, which means they’re going to deprive their family of that great source of protein because they can’t afford it.[10]

”

Peter Diemand, owner of the Wendell family farm, said,^[22]

“

I say this is not animal cruelty. If we have to change how we keep chickens, it's really going to affect our bottom line, whether or not we stay in the egg business.[10]

”

Daniel Fishman, United Independent Party candidate for state representative, said,^[18]

“

A ballot initiative before the Commonwealth seeks to impose this tax on everyone by requiring all eggs sold in the state of Massachusetts to come from cage-free chickens. This would absolutely raise the price of eggs in the supermarket. The amount of the increase is open to debate, but everyone agrees prices of the cheapest eggs will rise. For those of us who are already paying more for cage-free eggs, this will make them slightly cheaper because of the economy of scale. Yet for the people currently buying mass-produced eggs, this proposal represents a direct tax on them. It is a tax on the poor to subsidize the eating habits of the wealthy. Shame on us all should we ever implement such a tax on food, a necessity of life, that only affects the poor.[10]

”

Jayson Lusk, agricultural economics professor at Oklahoma State University, said,^[23]

“

Recent history shows this won’t end well for consumers’ budgets. A 2014 California voter initiative and subsequent state legislation ultimately led to a ban on sales of battery-cage eggs in the Golden State. Because eggs have few close substitutes, demand tends to be relatively insensitive to changes in price. When demand is inelastic, a small-percentage change in the quantity supplied causes an even greater increase in price. Comparing the prices of eggs sold in California before and after the law with the prices of eggs sold in other states reveals that the legislation increased egg prices for Californians by at least 22%—or about 75 cents for a dozen. A related analysis using Agriculture Department wholesale price data indicates the California law increased prices between 33% and 70%. Poor Americans, who spend a larger share of their incomes on food, are disproportionately affected.[10]

”

Ken Klippen, president of the National Association of Egg Farmers, said,^[21]

“

The National Association of Egg Farmers wants the people in Massachusetts to know that it has been more than five decades since the modern system of producing eggs ensures that chickens have better health, produce more grade-A eggs, and prevents contamination of the eggs with dirt and manure on the ground. Chickens establish a pecking order among them, so reducing the number of birds in an enclosure such as the modern cages reduces the stress from pecking. If this voter initiative passes in Massachusetts, it will be repeating the same mistakes in California when their initiative became law in 2015. Without improving the health and welfare of the chicken, egg prices rose more than a dollar per dozen after the law's implementation. Don't be misled by those putting forth this initiative who are intentionally trying to misinform, and who really don't want you to eat eggs anyway. Ask the farmer who provides the best care for his chickens because he wants to keep his chickens producing quality eggs at a price families can afford.[10]

”

Sally Smith, a member of Groton Agricultural Commission and owner of Common View Farm, wrote the following in a letter to the editor:^[24]

“

Right now, our farms are overseen by the following organizations: U. S. Dairy Administration, Mass. Dept. of Agricultural Resources, Middlesex County Farm Bureau, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Rescue League of Boston, local town agricultural commissions, and local town animal inspectors, to name a few. But, most importantly, they are overseen by you, the consumer. Please stand with, and trust your farmer. Please, vote no on Question 3.[10]

”

Media editorials

Support

• The Boston Globe: "f those projections are even roughly accurate, the initiative would translate into an additional cost of maybe $10 per Massachusetts resident per year — and probably less. Raising the cost of food essentials by any amount should never be done lightly, since it’s the most vulnerable who are hit hardest. But in this case, the premium seems like a price worth paying. The Globe endorses the Yes on Question 3 campaign, which would dial up pressure on food producers nationally to treat confined animals with more decency."^[25]

• Cape Cod Times: "We support the humane treatment of farm animals as do many farmers. We recommend voting Yes on Question 3 on Nov. 8."^[26]

• The Berkshire Eagle: "The living conditions of farm animals has become a greater topic of discussion in recent years than ever before. Question 3 on the November 8 ballot gives people a chance to do something about those conditions. [...] If passed, the new law won't be enforced until 2022, providing an adjustment period and a chance for the Legislature to make sure that no interstate commerce regulations are violated. The Eagle endorses a 'Yes' vote on Question 3."^[27]

Opposition

• The Lowell Sun wrote the following in opposition to Question 3:^[28]

“

In this case, we don't believe the end justifies the means. The buying public -- and its influence in the marketplace -- has already announced a preference for free-range farm produce, many of which are already available today. And as this societal demand continues to grow, so will the variety of products, creating more competition and lower prices. And since this law wouldn't take effect until 2022, that leaves ample time for this market transition to occur. That's preferable to another layer of bureaucracy, which is why we can't support Question 3.[10]

”

Legal challenge

Massachusetts farmer James Dunn and anti-poverty activist Diane Sullivan filed a legal challenge to have the courts remove the Question 3 from consideration. The complaint argued that the petition violated Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution in that it did not conform to the single subject rule.^[29]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments on June 8, 2016, regarding the single subject rule. Plaintiffs argued that the proposed measure was written to both ban certain farming practices and ban certain products from being sold.^[30] The court ruled on July 6, 2016, that the subjects were related because they "share a common purpose of preventing farm animals from being caged in overly cramped conditions."^[31]

Polls

Massachusetts Question 3
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Western New England University 10/23/2016-11/2/2016	64%	25%	9%	+/-4.5	470
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 10/24/2016-10/26/2016	62.4%	24.6%	1.2%	+/-4.4	500
WBUR/MassInc 10/13/2016 - 10/16/2016	66%	28%	7%	+/-4.4	502
Western New England University Polling Institute 9/24/2016 - 10/3/2016	61%	26%	12%	+/-5	467
WBUR/MassInc 9/7/2016 - 9/10/2016	66%	25%	9%	+/-4.4	506
WBZ/UMass Amherst 9/15/2016 - 9/20/2016	75%	14%	11%	+/-4.3	700
AVERAGES	65.73%	23.77%	8.2%	+/-4.5	524.17
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Note: The margin of error for the WBZ/UMass Amherst poll was found in a separate CBS article.^[32]

Note: The margin of error for the Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll was found in a separate article.^[33]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$3,453,019.51
Opposition:	$330,737.29

As of January 23, 2017, the support campaign for Question 3 featured one ballot question committee, Citizens for Farm Animal Protection, that raised a total of $3,453,019.51 in contributions, consisting of $2,755,513.12 in cash donations and $697,506.39 in in-kind donations—contributions of services or goods. The support campaign spent $3,440,381.00.^[34]

As of January 23, 2017, one ballot question committee, Citizens Against Food Tax Injustice, was registered to oppose Question 3. The committee had raised a total of $330,737.29, $302,600.00 in cash donations and $28,137.29 in in-kind donations. The committee spent $316,004.60.^[34]

As of January 23, 2017, the top donor in support of this initiative, Humane Society of the United States, provided approximately 72 percent of the campaign's total funds. It contributed $2,470,781.02 in cash and in-kind donations.^[34]

Support

Cash donations

The following ballot question committee registered to support Question 3 as of January 23, 2017. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of January 23, 2017.^[34]

Committee	Amount raised[35]	Amount spent
Citizens for Farm Animal Protection	$2,755,513.12	$2,742,874.61
Total	$2,755,513.12	$2,742,874.61

Support in-kind donations

As of January 23, 2017, the ballot question committee registered to support the initiative received in-kind donations in the amount of $697,506.39. The top in-kind donor, Humane Society of the United States, contributed $468,448.02 in in-kind services.^[34]

Top donors

As of January 23, 2017, the following were the top five donors in support of Question 3:^[34]

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Humane Society of the United States	$2,002,333.00	$468,448.02	$2,470,781.02
Maximilian Stone	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
ASPCA	$100,000.00	$88,237.63	$188,237.63
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
The Humane Society Legislative Fund	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Opposition

Cash donations

The following ballot question committee registered to oppose Question 3 as of January 23, 2017. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of January 23, 2017.^[34]

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Citizens Against Food Tax Injustice	$302,600.00	$287,867.31
Total	$302,600.00	$287,867.31

Opposition in-kind donations

As of January 23, 2017, the ballot question committee registered to oppose the initiative received $28,137.29 in in-kind donations. Berman and Company was the largest in-kind contributor, providing $23,850.90 in services.^[34]

Top donors

As of January 23, 2017, the following were the top five donors in opposition to Question 3:^[34]

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Forrest Lucas	$195,000.00	$0.00	$195,000.00
National Pork Producers Council	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Berman and Company	$0.00	$23,850.90	$23,850.90
Retailers of Massachusetts	$2,000.00	$1,205.87	$3,205.87
Northeast Agribusiness & Field Alliance, Inc.	$2,500.00	$0.00	$2,500.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

Since Massachusetts employs an indirect initiative process, the state's general court has an opportunity to adopt proposed laws before they move to a popular vote. However, unlike other states, Massachusetts requires additional signatures following legislative inaction on state statutes. Initiative amendments must be approved by a quarter of the legislature to reach the ballot.

For an amendment or statute, submitted signatures must equal 3 percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election, excluding blanks. If the legislature declines to act on a proposed statute, supporters are required to collect a second round of signatures totaling 0.5 percent of the votes last cast for governor, excluding blanks. For proposed amendments, one-quarter of the legislature must approve the petition in a joint session—a second round of signatures is not required and does not overrule rejection by more than three-quarters of the legislature.

Supporters had until December 2, 2015, to submit at least 64,750 valid signatures. A total of 95,817 signatures were submitted to the secretary of state's office and were certified mid-December 2015. Next, the proposal was put before the Legislature. May 3, 2016, was the deadline for the legislature to take action on the initiative.^[36]

The legislature did not enact this initiative. To qualify it for the November 2016 election ballot, petitioners needed to collect another 10,792 signatures and submit them to local clerks by about June 22, 2016, so that the petitions could be submitted to the state by a legal deadline on July 6, 2016.^[37][38]

Citizens for Farm Animal Protection submitted 40,000 signatures to local clerks on June 22, 2016.^[39] William Galvin, secretary of the commonwealth, approved the signatures on July 6, 2016, certifying Question 3 for the November 8, 2016, ballot.^[40]

Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $102,103.18^[41] was spent to collect the 75,542 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $1.35.

Related measures

2016

Treatment of animals measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Montana	Montana Animal Trap Restrictions Initiative, I-177 d

Past meausures

• California Proposition 2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals (2008) a
• Arizona Humane Farms, Proposition 204 (2006) a
• Florida Animal Cruelty, Amendment 10 (2002) a

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Massachusetts Farm Animal Containment Question 3. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

• 2016 ballot measures
• Massachusetts 2016 ballot measures
• Massachusetts ballot measures

External links

• Massachusetts 2016 Voter Guide

Support

• Yes on 3 website
• Yes on 3 on Facebook
• Yes on 3 on Twitter
• Yes on 3 on Instagram

Opposition

• No on Question 3 website
• No on Question 3 Facebook
• No on Question 3 Twitter

Footnotes

v • e 2016 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin Political topics Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

v • e Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Michelle Robinson, Senior Product Manager, Education & School Boards Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Erica Shumaker External Relations: Andrew Heath • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald Research: Josh Altic Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Trevor Pollo • Joseph Sanchez Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Roneka Matheny • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora

	v • e State of Massachusetts Boston (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy