Throughout the first 40 years when the initiative and referendum process was available in many states, animal protection groups did not use the process frequently, focusing primarily on local concerns and direct care of horses, dogs, and cats. Few groups focused on state policy, and fewer still on national policy. Nonetheless, there were several initiatives dealing with vivisection, rodeo, and trapping in the 1920s and 1930s, with voters rejecting most of the measures.

Between 1940 and 1988, animal protection advocates qualified just a handful of animal protection initiatives, and only one of them passed — a 1972 measure in South Dakota to ban dove hunting. Voters reversed the dove hunting ban eight years later. Maine voters rejected a ban on moose hunting in 1983 and Ohio and Oregon voters rejected anti-trapping initiatives in 1978 and 1980, respectively. This 50-year span marked a period of hegemonic control over policies related to the use of animals by agricultural, hunting, and other industries, since there was almost no successful activity to restrict legalized cruelty in state legislatures.

In 1988, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to institute a mountain lion hunting season. Animal protection advocates sued the state to delay the onset of the hunting. Soon thereafter, they launched and qualified an initiative to ban any trophy hunting of lions. In June 1990, voters approved the measure, and its passage sparked renewed interest in the initiative process by animal protection advocates.

Since 1990, there have been ballot measures launched by animal advocates every election cycle, led by HSUS and The Fund for Animals. Led by Pacelle, these groups approached the initiatives in a highly professional manner; carefully identifying issues in demographically favorable states, organizing volunteer petitioners, conducting public attitude surveys, raising money, and persuading voters primarily by airing emotionally compelling advertising showing direct harm to animals.

Between 1990 and 2018, animal protection advocates squared off against factory farmers, trophy hunters, and other animal-use industries in 58 statewide ballot measure campaigns, winning 40 campaigns – a 69% success rate (complete list below). Forty-four of the measures were initiatives or referenda pushed by animal protection advocates (including a measure referred to the ballot by Florida’s unique Constitutional Revision Commission; six were pro-hunting referenda and two were pro-factory farming referendums placed on ballots by state legislators; five measures were initiatives or referenda supported by animal use industries; and one was a pro-animal referendum placed on the ballot by state lawmakers.

Of the animal protection initiatives or referenda attempted since 1990; animal protection advocates won restrictions on cruel methods of trapping in five of eight states they attempted; won measures related to hound hunting and bear baiting in four of the seven states they attempted; one of the two ballot measures to ban mourning dove hunting was successful; one measure on horse slaughter passed; two measures on wildlife trafficking (covering multiple species) were approved; all three measures on cockfighting were successful; two of the three measures on airborne hunting of predators in Alaska were adopted by the voters; both measures rejecting wolf hunting in Michigan were successful; two of three measures to ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts was successful; one measure to set standards of care for dogs at puppy mills passed in Missouri, the largest puppy mill state; and all five measures on extreme confinement of farm animals in crates and cages (dealing with various forms of confinement) passed. Even though the animal protection movement failed in efforts to strengthen anti-cruelty laws in Arkansas and North Dakota via the ballot box, state lawmakers passed the legislation later in both states at HSUS’s urging.

Of the six contested pro-hunting referenda, animal protection advocates prevailed in five campaigns. Most of these pro-hunting referenda sought to make it practically impossible to use the initiative process by creating new passage or qualification standards. One pro-hunting referendum, which was contested and defeated, sought to repeal the ban on lion hunting in California.

Animal protection advocates defeated three of the four initiatives and referenda from animal use industries — one to repeal the voter-approved ban on hounding and baiting in Oregon, one to expand gambling at greyhound and horse racing tracks in Arizona, and one to repeal California’s ban on plastic grocery bags which injure and kill sea birds and marine animals.

Since 1996, 20 states have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to hunt, and Missouri (2014) and North Dakota (2012) have passed amendments to their constitutions to establish a right to farm. IN 2016, we defeated a right to farm measure in Oklahoma. Animal protection advocates contested only the Missouri and Oklahoma measures.

In summary, the animal protection movement has had great success in carefully selecting and winning initiative and referendum campaigns. However, the victories have come at some cost as outlined above; animal-use industries have worked with their allies in state legislatures to deny access to the initiative process by animal protection advocates, have attempted to repeal animal protection measures by placing referenda on the ballot, and pushed for constitutional right to farm or hunt measures. Fortunately, the animal protection movement have largely been successful in defeating the most meaningful counter-measures and will continue to be diligent in their efforts to safeguard the process, propose animal protection initiatives and referenda, and stop the animal-use industries’ attempts at overturning their efforts.