Property Rights/Environment Failed General Election
✗

PEAPAC Recommends: NO

Radical prior restraint; presumes all cattle are bad; biblical law (Exodus 22) requires restitution for actual damage, not preemptive bans.

Summary

Bans livestock from being in or near waters that do not meet state water quality standards.

Biblical Reasoning

The civil government does have some obligations biblically to punish evil-doers (via restitution) whose careless actions result in damage to the goods of others. (Exodus 22:5, 6…)

But someone (including the State) who believes someone else’s cattle has damaged his field (or stream) already has the capability of suing to recover damages. This Measure is radical, is aimed at prior restraint, and essentially presumes that all cattle in all waters are bad.

Proverbs 29:2 — “When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Exodus 22:5-6 — “If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”

Election Results

39%
61%
YesNo

Voters rejected this livestock prohibition (61% No).

Full PEAPAC Analysis

Again, this expands the State’s involvement in commerce. The civil government does have some obligations biblically to punish evil-doers (via restitution) whose careless actions result in damage to the goods of others. (Exodus 22:5, 6 “If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man’s field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution. If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”)

But someone (including the State) who believes someone else’s cattle has damaged his field (or stream) already has the capability of suing to recover damages. This Measure is radical, is aimed at prior restraint, and essentially presumes that all cattle in all waters are bad. We strongly recommend a NO vote on this Measure.

← PreviousMeasure 37 (1996)