As a former Maine state legislator, I have witnessed how the wrong language in a bill can kill it before it even gets started. Although often unintended, amendments can’t undo the wrong. The bill is deemed unworthy of consideration, when if properly written might have met a different fate.

That is the conundrum we now find ourselves with Question 3. Its vague language raises more questions than it answers, and begets “a solution looking for a problem.” This is not just any bill, but one that would create a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment is serious legislative business addressing an important public issue. The Right to Food Amendment, well-meaning as it may be, it is important to note that no other state in the country has felt a need for such an amendment. This forum does not provide enough space to address numerous animal welfare concerns that may arise as, if passed, this amendment plays its way through the court system that will ultimately and unfortunately have to define it.

This proposed constitutional amendment is not only unnecessary, it is flawed, vague, inadequately considered the unintended consequences, misleading even in its title, and provides no sense of need, especially to amend our state constitution. Question 3 should be defeated.

Robert Fisk, Jr.
Maine Friends of Animals
President and Executive Director

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: