The Colorado Supreme Court halted a ballot initiative that would have expanded animal cruelty protections for livestock, handing a victory to the agricultural organizations that opposed the measure.

The justices issued a rare written opinion on Monday reversing the actions of the Title Board, which is the gatekeeping body that advances proposed ballot initiatives to the signature-gathering stage only if it approves a title describing the initiative to voters.

Initiative #16, also known as Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation (PAUSE), would have placed parameters on the slaughter of livestock and, as the most controversial feature, redefined “sexual act with an animal” to include penetration, however slight, into an animal’s anus or genitals with an object or body part.

“Although the central theme of the initiative is incorporating livestock into the animal cruelty statutes, redefining ‘sexual act with an animal’ strays into a second subject by addressing the bodily integrity of all animals, not just livestock,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III for the Court. As such, “there is the potential for the very kind of voter surprise against which the single-subject requirement seeks to guard – here, voters might not understand that what is nominally a livestock initiative also affects the care of all animals, or vice versa.”

On March 14, the three-member Title Board awarded a ballot title to Initiative #16, finding that it encompassed a single subject as the constitution requires. Subsequently, a group of a half dozen objectors asked the board to reconsider its decision, arguing the measure contained multiple subjects and used “politically-charged code to get this past a majority of voters.”

Although board members did revise some of the language, they rebuffed the request to reject the measure outright. The objectors then turned to the Supreme Court.

In addition to the single-subject question, the issue for the Court to decide was whether phrases like “animal cruelty” and “sexual act with an animal” in the title were catchphrases meant to improperly appeal to voters’ sympathy.

“These phrases suggest that the primary purpose of this measure is to counter sexual acts between humans and animals,” wrote Mark G. Grueskin, attorney for the objectors, to the Court. “By using this misdirection of voter attention, Initiative 16 was intended to, and the titles do, trigger strong emotional and political responses that are far removed from the Initiative’s other purposes. Indeed, the political debate around Initiative 16 is already being framed around whether or not a person supports sex with animals.”

The groups opposing PAUSE under the name Coloradans for Animal Care included the Colorado Farm Bureau, the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Dairy Farmers, Colorado Wool Growers Association, Colorado Livestock Association and the Colorado Pork Producers Council.

“Initiative 16 was one of the most radical ballot initiatives this state has ever seen. Had it passed, it would have ended animal agriculture, rodeos, dog shows and much more,” said the Colorado Farm Bureau in a statement on Monday. “We are hopeful that these kinds of extreme initiatives stop here.” 

The designated representatives for the PAUSE measure, Alexander Sage and Brent Johannes, argued to the Court that animal cruelty takes many forms, and residents would clearly see from the ballot title that “a ‘yes’ vote means that a Colorado voter agrees with enhancing the statutes related to cruelty to animals.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court did not evaluate the claim that the title contained improper or politically-charged catchphrases. It also agreed with the proponents that changes related to the slaughter of livestock did fit within the measure’s subject.

However, it was the provision redefining sexual acts with an animal that the justices concluded went beyond the stated subject of expanding animal cruelty protections for livestock.

“Instead, it would modify the standard of care for all animals by criminalizing new conduct, regardless of whether that conduct is directed at livestock or other animals,” wrote Hood. Creating a new prohibition applicable to all animals could, he added, surprise voters who believed they were weighing a measure solely pertaining to livestock.

Proponents of Initiative #16 did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The ballot initiative’s website indicated the purpose of the proposal was to extend existing protections for dogs and cats to farm animals, and allowing for their slaughter after reaching adulthood.

Opponents were concerned that the language to redefine sexual acts with an animal may have outlawed artificial insemination practices, and a nonpartisan analysis found the initiative would increase the cost of meat.

Rep. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose, who is the vice chair of the House Rural Affairs & Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that animal safety is a top priority for those in the agriculture industry. But the PAUSE initiative “would have severely harmed one of the state’s greatest industries, and thereby furthering the urban-rural divide.”