State farm leaders have mixed emotions about I-300 ruling
OMAHA — A ruling that Nebraska’s corporate-farming ban is unconstitutional represents a chance to tweak the divisive law, some of the state’s agriculture leaders said. But others said overturning the ban will harm family farms.
But the effects of the ruling, if there are any, may not be realized for some time, said Greg Ibach, director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture.
“We’re not done deciding where we’re at here,” Ibach said.
State Attorney General Jon Bruning said Thursday that he would appeal the ruling by U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith-Camp.
The corporate farming ban, known as Initiative 300, violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Americans With Disabilities Act, Smith-Camp ruled on Thursday.
She said the ban violates the Americans With Disabilities Act because it requires at least one family member who owns the farm to be engaged in day-to-day physical activities on the farm. The lawsuit alleged that that discriminated against people who have disabilities.
John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, said he was shocked and extremely disappointed by Smith-Camp’s ruling.
“The judge has overthrown a citizens’ initiative that has served the state well for 23 years,” said Hansen, who was one of the original drafters of I-300. “This is a very sad day for family farm agriculture in the state of Nebraska.”
The ban does not discriminate against people with disabilities, Hansen said.
“No discrimination was ever intended,” Hansen said. “We took great care to make sure there was not discrimination.”
Michael Kelsey, executive vice president of the Nebraska Cattlemen, said his organization has members on both sides of the corporate-farming debate.
If the ruling weathers the appeals process, Kelsey said, it could be an opportunity redo a law that had been very divisive since it was implemented in 1982, Kelsey said.
Keith Olsen, president of the Nebraska Farm Bureau, agreed that Smith-Camp’s ruling could create an opportunity to make adjustments to the ban. But protecting family farms should still be the number one priority in Nebraska, Olsen said.
“I hope this doesn’t open the door to larger corporate entities coming in to take over Nebraska’s ag scene,” Olsen said. “I don’t think that’s what people who opposed I-300 wanted.”
But that’s just what Al Davis of the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska is afraid will happen if the ruling stands.
Initially, Davis said, allowing corporations into the state’s ag arena will mean large investments and a lot of new technology. But eventually, smaller farmers will find it too difficult to compete with the corporations, Davis said.
“I think in the long term it has a tremendous downside for agriculture,” Davis said of Thursday’s ruling.
But the effects of the ruling, if there are any, may not be realized for some time, said Greg Ibach, director of the Nebraska Department of Agriculture.
“We’re not done deciding where we’re at here,” Ibach said.
State Attorney General Jon Bruning said Thursday that he would appeal the ruling by U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith-Camp.
The corporate farming ban, known as Initiative 300, violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Americans With Disabilities Act, Smith-Camp ruled on Thursday.
She said the ban violates the Americans With Disabilities Act because it requires at least one family member who owns the farm to be engaged in day-to-day physical activities on the farm. The lawsuit alleged that that discriminated against people who have disabilities.
John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, said he was shocked and extremely disappointed by Smith-Camp’s ruling.
“The judge has overthrown a citizens’ initiative that has served the state well for 23 years,” said Hansen, who was one of the original drafters of I-300. “This is a very sad day for family farm agriculture in the state of Nebraska.”
The ban does not discriminate against people with disabilities, Hansen said.
“No discrimination was ever intended,” Hansen said. “We took great care to make sure there was not discrimination.”
Michael Kelsey, executive vice president of the Nebraska Cattlemen, said his organization has members on both sides of the corporate-farming debate.
If the ruling weathers the appeals process, Kelsey said, it could be an opportunity redo a law that had been very divisive since it was implemented in 1982, Kelsey said.
Keith Olsen, president of the Nebraska Farm Bureau, agreed that Smith-Camp’s ruling could create an opportunity to make adjustments to the ban. But protecting family farms should still be the number one priority in Nebraska, Olsen said.
“I hope this doesn’t open the door to larger corporate entities coming in to take over Nebraska’s ag scene,” Olsen said. “I don’t think that’s what people who opposed I-300 wanted.”
But that’s just what Al Davis of the Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska is afraid will happen if the ruling stands.
Initially, Davis said, allowing corporations into the state’s ag arena will mean large investments and a lot of new technology. But eventually, smaller farmers will find it too difficult to compete with the corporations, Davis said.
“I think in the long term it has a tremendous downside for agriculture,” Davis said of Thursday’s ruling.
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.