Plight of pigs in the family way points to weighty idea

TROXLER E-mail: Click here Archive

© St. Petersburg Times
published January 18, 2002

It might sound wacky, but the Florida Supreme Court did exactly right on Thursday when it approved a constitutional amendment that would protect pregnant pigs for this November's ballot.

You heard right. Pregnant pigs. Constitutional amendment. This is not a joke.

The amendment says, in pertinent part:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a farm in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely."

Violators could be convicted of a first-degree misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a year in jail, and they would be liable for a fine of up to $5,000.

Per pig.

In no way do I minimize the suffering of animals or approve of their mistreatment. If this gets on the ballot -- they still need to finish gathering a half-million signatures -- it would be hard to resist on emotional grounds.

But this again raises a philosophical question: Is this how we ought to be using the Florida Constitution?

A constitution is a fundamental and supposedly awesome document. It creates the basic structure of our democracy -- executive, legislative, judicial branches, and defines the checks and balances among them.

All the lesser rules of the road are mere laws, statutes passed by the Legislature. How will we spend our tax money this year? What should the statewide speed limit be? How long should a robber spend in prison?

The problem is that Florida allows citizen petitions only for amendments, and not for mere laws.

The inspiration for modern petition drives was a ban on net fishing in Florida passed in 1994. Repeatedly, backers of the net ban were beaten in the Legislature by the influence of the fishing industry. They finally went directly to the people and won.

Since then, constitutional amendments have blossomed, while becoming more and more mundane. One attempted drive dealt with, no kidding, false teeth. In 2000, the policy question of building a high-speed train made it to the ballot, and was carved in stone into our Constitution by the voters. Woooo!

Still, the Supreme Court ruled correctly on Thursday. The court has two jobs in reviewing a petition. Does it deal with a single subject? Is it clear and unambiguous?

Here, it was not a close call. The pregnant pig amendment indisputably deals with a single subject. It is crystal clear. The Supreme Court was unanimous, although three of the justices raised some of the same philosophical questions about the use of our Constitution.

There are two ways to change this. They go in opposite directions.

The first way is to create a "statutory initiative" in Florida, the power to petition to create a law. There are a lot of potential problems with this. It would be easy for special interests to "buy" their own laws via the ballot. (Believe it or not, the Legislature does sometimes serve as a filter for wicked ideas.)

Ballots crammed with dozens of proposed laws, as has sometimes been the case in other states, can be confusing. You think it's bad NOW, figuring out the candidates for mosquito control district?

Finally, there has to be a way to edit and amend laws. The broad, blunt instrument of the ballot box is no match for the necessary compromise and fine-tuning of the legislative process. At the very least, the Legislature ought to have first crack at writing a law, with the Supreme Court deciding whether that satisfies the petition.

There is a second way that seems harsh and anti-democratic, but as time passes I find myself considering it more and more often.

Maybe petitions in the end are a cheap shortcut, an easy way out, like junk food. Maybe they short-circuit our democracy instead of enhancing it.

Maybe, instead of having petition drives to do an end-run around a wicked Legislature, we should have no alternative but to get off our rears and get angry enough to elect a better Legislature in the first place. Maybe.

-- You can reach Howard Troxler at (727) 893-8505 or at troxler@sptimes.com.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright