|
             
|
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. —(AP)— The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld a lower court's ruling that South Dakota's Amendment E is unconstitutional because it interferes with interstate commerce. The 1998 amendment was designed to protect the state's farmers from unfair competition by big corporations and the potential environmental problems that factory farms could cause in South Dakota. It generally would have excluded non-family farm corporations from owning farmland or farming in South Dakota. Eight other Midwestern states have similar laws on the books, but none go as far as South Dakota's. In its ruling, the appeals court found that Amendment E is discriminatory because its true intent is to keep out-of-state companies from operating in South Dakota. ``Our point here is not to adopt one economic theory or another, but rather to emphasize that no study or forecast was commissioned to evaluate any theories,'' the opinion read. ``We believe that this lack of information serves as indirect evidence of the drafters' intent to create a law specifically targeting out-of-state businesses, which the drafters viewed as the sole cause of the perils facing family farmers and a leading potential cause of environmental damage.'' The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents states from enacting laws that disrupt interstate commerce. Whether Amendment E actually would protect family farmers and the environment is unknown, the appellate judges said. The facts of the case indicate that Amendment E supporters had little evidence to show that a ban on corporate farming would be effective in preserving the family farm or protecting the environment, they added. Supporters also failed to prove that nondiscriminatory alternatives existed, the 8th Circuit said. ``Although the record contains evidence linking industrial farming with poverty and environmental problems, it contains no evidence that suggests, evaluates or critiques alternative solutions,'' the judges said, adding that voters approved the constitutional amendment without knowing if it would be effective or not. The lawsuit against Amendment E was filed by the South Dakota Farm Bureau, state Sheep Growers Association, a handful of farmers and ranchers, and two electric companies. Farm groups opposing the amendment said it was too restrictive and eliminated farming opportunities by interfering with business arrangements commonly used in other sectors of the economy. Michael Held, administrative director for the South Dakota Farm Bureau, said he was pleased with Tuesday's decision. ``It's a victory for this state's family farmers and ranchers,'' Held said. The ruling also said some of the plaintiffs were damaged because Amendment E interfered with their business practices. Held did not know if that finding would allow plaintiffs to seek compensation. A federal judge in Aberdeen ruled Amendment E unconstitutional last year, saying it would hurt interstate trade by unfairly regulating utility corridors. Judge Charles Kornmann also said it would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by requiring at least one family member of a corporate farm to live on the farm or do the daily chores and management. The Court of Appeals found that Kornmann should not have considered the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Nonetheless, Amendment E still interfered with interstate trade, the ruling said. State Sen. Frank Kloucek, D-Scotland, was disappointed by the ruling. Kloucek disagreed that Amendment E would discriminate against out-of-state companies. The measure sought to ban farm ownership by any corporation, whether they were in the state or not, he said. ``I feel that they definitely misinterpreted, not only the intent of Amendment E, but the purpose of it,'' Kloucek said. Individual farmers can be held accountable for their actions and what they do to the environment, Kloucek said. Big corporations, on the other hand, have shown that they do not feel responsible for their actions, he charged. Charlie Johnson, a co-sponsor of Amendment E and member of Dakota Rural Action, also was disappointed. Without the measure, companies have a green light to come into South Dakota and ``Enron'' the state economy, Johnson said. The courts got too hung up on the details of Amendment E without looking at its overall purpose, Johnson said. ``The very essence of what Amendment E is, is still good for agriculture today,'' he insisted. Last year, voters rejected another proposed constitutional amendment that would have generally barred corporations from farming or owning farmland but allowed exemptions to let family farmers pick business and financial partners. |
|
 |
|
Questions? Comments? Suggestions? |