COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT SUFFOLK, SS. JAMES H. DUNN, DIANE SULLIVAN, Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO/h -I,{ 5 &# v. MAURA HEALY, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and WILLIAM F. GALVIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Defendants. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action for grant of certiorari and mandamus under:Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, § 4 and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, § 5, respectively, ~d for declaratory relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231A. Plaintiff, a registered voter, taxpayer, and resident of the Commonwealth, seeks relief relating to a citizen-initiated ballot initiative entitled "An Act to Prevent Farm Animal Cruelty" and designated as Initiative Petition No. 15-11 ("the Petition"). 2. On or about September 2, 2015, Maura Healy, Attorney General of Massachusetts, certified the Petition pursuant to Article 48 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights ("Article 48"), Mass. Const. art. 48, II, §§ 1-3, despite the Petition being in improper form for submission to the people and containing subjects that are not related or mutually dependent (commonly referred to as a "single subject rule"). 1 6955084v1 3. Because the Petition fails to satisfy the requirements provided in Article 48, it should not be the subject of any further official actions by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. JURISDICTION 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 249, §§ 4 and 5 and Chapter 231A, § 1. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff, James H. Dunn, is a registered voter, taxpayer, and resident of Wendell, MA. Mr. Dunn is a Massachusetts native and has experience raising a variety of livestock. Mr. Dunn previously served on the Agricultural Commission for Wendell, MA and has a vested interest in protecting Massachusetts' agricultural community. 6. Mr. Dunn believes farmers know best how to balance all the competing needs of their livestock and that agricultural producers and businesses should be allowed to contract for the sale and purchase of goods in a free market. Mr. Dunn is concerned that the Petition, as drafted and certified by the Massachusetts Attorney General, conflates these two questions into a single question that does not enable voters to vote "yea" or "nay," as required by the Massachusetts Constitution. 7. Plaintiff, Diane Sullivan, is a registered voter, taxpayer, and resident of Medford, MA. Ms. Sullivan is the Policy Director for a nonprofit organization that works closely with families experiencing homelessness and poverty, and has served on the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, Medford Community Housing, Housing Families, Inc., and the Somerville Homeless Coalition. Ms. Sullivan has a vested interest in ensuring that low income families in Massachusetts have access to affordable food. 2 6955084v1 8. Ms. Sullivan is concerned about the impact the Petition will have on Massachusetts families living at or below the poverty line. As a recipient of SNAP benefits, Ms. Sullivan understands the challenge of providing nutritious food to a family on a limited budget. Ms. Sullivan believes the Petition's stated purpose and animal welfare provisions may distract voters from the provision limiting the sale of certain animal products in Massachusetts, which will certainly raise the cost of food for Massachusetts families. 9. Defendant, Maura Healy, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is an officer of the Commonwealth pursuant to Article LXIV, Section 1 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The office of the Attorney General is located at One Ash burton Place, Boston, MA, 02108. 10. Defendant, William F. Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth, is an officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to Article LXIV, Section 1 of the Massachusetts Constitution. The office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth is located at One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA, 02108. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11. On or about August 5, 2015, the Petition was filed with the Attorney General's Office and given the designation Initiative Petition No. 15-11. A true and correct copy of the Petition is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 12. Section 1 of the Petition expresses the Petition's purpose, providing: 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. 13. Section 2 of the Petition provides: 3 6955084v1 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. 14. Section 3 of the Petition provides: 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. 15. Sections 4 through 11 provide exceptions, definitions, enforcement and defenses provisions, and address implementation of the Petition after passage. 16. On or about September 2, 2015, pursuant to Article 48, the Attorney General certified that the Petition was "in proper form for submission to the people ... and that it contains only subjects that are related or are mutually dependent." No further findings or explanation were provided in support of this certification. A true and correct copy of the Attorney General Certification Letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 17. The Attorney General also prepared the "Summary of No. 15-11" to comply with the requirements of Article 48. A true and correct copy of the "Summary of No. 15-11" is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 18. On or about September 3, 2015, the Petition's proponents filed a copy of the Petition and Summary of No. 15-11 with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. A true 4 6955084v1 and correct copy of the timestamped Petition and Summary is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. 19. On or about September 3, 2015, the Secretary of the Commonwealth prepared and distributed blank signature forms for circulation by the proponents of the Petition. A true and correct copy of the email sent to the Petition's proponents and the electronic version of the signature form are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits E and F, respectively. 20. On or about December 2, 2015, the proponents filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth what they asserted to be a sufficient number of certified signatures on the Petition to require the Secretary of the Commonwealth to transmit the Petition to the General Court. 21. On or about December 18, 2015, the Secretary of the Commonwealth certified that the Petition's proponents had submitted a sufficient number of signatures. A true and correct copy of the signature certification letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G. 22. On or about January 6, 2016, the Secretary of the Commonwealth transmitted the Petition to the General Court of Massachusetts. A true and correct copy of the transmittal letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit H. COUNT I THE PETITION IS NOT IN PROPER FORM FOR SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE 23. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 22 above. 5 6955084v1 24. In certifying the Petition, the Attorney General improperly permitted a Petition to be submitted to the people that violates the requirements outlined in Article 48. 25. Article 48 requires that initiative petitions be "in proper form for submission to the people." 26. Section 1 of the Petition is not in proper form for submission to the people because it is not a law. 27. Section 1 contains "purpose" and "findings" statements expressing conclusions about animal livelihood, economics, and human health. Section 1 does not create definitions or instructions useful in understanding the subsequent provisions of the initiative, it does not direct or mandate behavior, and it has no substantial legal significance of its own. 28. The Initiative Petition Filing Instructions ("the Instructions") issued by the Attorney General's office warn against including such language unless it has substantial legal significance, less the petition not meet the requirements of Article 48 (http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/initiatives-and-other-ballotquestions/initiative-instructions.html). The Instructions state, "the initiative petition process is a vehicle for making laws, not for voting on lengthy statements of policy that themselves have no legal significance." A true and correct copy of the Attorney General's Initiative Petition Filing Instructions is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit I. 29. Permitting policy statements like those contained in Section 1 of the Petition misleads voters by implying that the entire petition has legal significance, although Section 1, in fact, has no legal impact. 6 6955084v1 30. The improper form of Section 1 taints the entire Petition, rendering the Petition unfit for submission to the people as required by Article 48. COUNT II SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE PETITION CONTAIN SUBJECTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED OR MUTUALLY DEPENDENT 31. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Complaint. 32. In certifying the Petition, the Attorney General improperly permitted a Petition to be submitted to the people that violates the requirements outlined in Article 48. 33. Article 48 requires that initiative petitions contain "only subjects not excluded from the popular initiative and which are related or which are mutually dependent." 34. The Petition contains subjects which are not related or mutually dependent as required by Article 48. 35. In particular, Sections 2 and 3 contain subjects which are not related or mutually dependent. 36. Section 2, as described above, relates to the imposition of regulations concerning the manner in which certain livestock must be produced in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The outcome of enacting Section 2 is to change the operation practices of a single egg producer within Massachusetts. 37. Section 3, as described above, relates to the imposition of regulations concerning the sale and purchase of certain animal products in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The effect of Section 3 is to ban the purchase of eggs, pork, and veal from out-of-state producers, which will limit the products for sale in Massachusetts and increase the cost of these foods within the state. 7 6955084v1 38. Accordingly, a vote "aye" or "nay" for the Petition does not have a single effect but rather affects two unrelated and independent aspects of the Massachusetts economy: 1) the production of livestock by a single egg producer and 2) the purchase of eggs, pork, and veal by wholesalers, retailers, and consumers for consumption in Massachusetts. COUNT Ill SECTIONS 2 AND 5 OF THE PETITION CONTAIN SUBJECTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED OR MUTUALLY DEPENDENT 39. Plaintiff rea lieges Paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Complaint. 40. In certifying the Petition, the Attorney General improperly permitted a Petition to be submitted to the people that violates the requirements outlined in Article 48. 41. Article 48 requires that initiative petitions contain "only subjects not excluded from the popular initiative and which are related or which are mutually dependent." 42. The Petition contains subjects which are not related or mutually dependent as required by Article 48. 43. In particular, Sections 2 and 5 contain subjects which are not related or mutually dependent. 44. Section 2 of the Petition addresses the "cruel" confinement of three types of covered animals: breeding pigs, calves raised for veal, or egg-laying hens. 45. Section 5(e) of the Petition defines "confined in a cruel manner" to mean "confined so as to prevent a covered animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal's limbs, or turning around freely." 8 6955084v1 46. The type and purpose of the banned confinement varies for the covered animals. 47. For example, gestation crates allow a sow to lie down, but not turn around. The American Veterinary Medical Association has identified several benefits of gestational crates, including minimized aggression and injury, reduced food competition, and individual feeding and health care. 48. Similarly, veal crates prevent a calf from turning around freely but improve calf health by allowing the producer to give more individual attention to the calves, providing a cleaner environment, and reducing disease transmission by limiting animal-· to-animal contact. 49. Battery cages allow hens to turn around, but may prevent a hen from fully extending its wings. However, battery cages reduce disease transmission, flight-related injuries, and hen-on-hen aggression that leads to feather loss, injury, death, and even cannibalism. Egg production also is increased by reducing hen stress, minimizing accidental egg damage, and improving egg collection. 50. Because the type and purpose of the banned confinement varies for these covered animals, a voter may be in favor of banning one type of confinement but support the continued use of another. Thus, the Petition does not provide a "single subject" for which a Massachusetts voter may vote "aye" or "nay" and therefore violates the requirements of Article 48. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment: 9 6955084v1 1 In the nature of certioran', declaring that the Attorney General erred as a matter of law in certifying Petition 15-11 under Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and quashing that certification. 2. In the nature ot mandamus, directing that the Secretary of the Commonwealth take no further steps pursuant to Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution to advance Petition 15-11 in any manner, including but not limited to. any actions relating to the submission of Petition 15-11 to the voters. 3. Declaring Petition 15-11 fails to meet the requirements of Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. 4 Attording the Plant such other relie1 as is just and proper. Respectfully suofifihed, /s/f JON BRUNING (pro hac vice pending) A FRANCIS . IL Murtha 600 rk Qrive Bruning Law Group Woburn. MA 01801 1201 Lincoln Mall, Suite 100 (781) Lincoln NE, 68508 (517) -iax) (402)- -@murthalaw.com (402) (fax) .212!) wgroupcom KATHERINE J, SPOHN MARY ELIZABETH JACOBSON (pro hac vice pending) Bruning Law Group 1201 Lincoln Mall, Suite 100 Lincoln NE. 68508 (402) (402) (fax) mbrumnglawgroupcom sessaun 10 (pro hac vice pending) Bruning Law Group 1201 Lincoln Mall, Suite 100 Lincoln NE, 68508 (402) (402) (tax) -@bruninglawgroup.com