Alan Guebert is an Illinois farm journalist.
Another national check-off vote; another woolly mess.This time, however, USDA’s Ag Marketing Service tossed out the allegedly fraudulent results before a single producer dime was collected.
How and why AMS took this unprecedented action is only the latest chapter in what is fast becoming a fat book of sordid U.S. check-off stories.
This one begins last summer when battle lines were drawn for the February 1996 check-off vote. The sheep and wool establishment, mainly through the American Sheep Industry Association, favored the check-off to replace the wool program which Congress had voted to end in 1996.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
Lamb feeders, apparel and textile importers and lamb exporters to the U.S. actively campaigned against the proposal. While most claimed not to be against check-offs per se, this check-off, they argued, was far too expensive, would foster an unnecessarily big bureaucracy, divvied up power in a manner that would lead to continued stalemate, and contained no refund provision.
Even a cursory examination of the check-off order showed these concerns to be well-founded. Yet check-off opponents had no success in changing what they felt were inherent problems prior to the vote. The referendum, held Feb. 6, passed by 1,613 votes: 10,707 to 9,094.
While the majority of ballots cast that day favored the referendum, those who voted against it actually represented more sheep and lambs, by a wide 60-40 split, than those who voted yes.
Almost immediately, AMS received reports – and then formal complaints – that voting rules had been applied inconsistently across many counties. The three most frequent complaints were similar to those voiced in the soybean check-off referendum two years ago:
- Husbands and wives (or partners) who represented a single business entity cast a single vote in some areas while other polling stations permitted similar entities two votes;
- Incomplete absentee ballots were counted in some counties and tossed out in others and
- Proof of sheep ownership often was challenged and resulted in the votes being declared invalid.
Under heat to address the mess, AMS rescinded the collection of money, due to being July 1, pending an investigation. The action voided the February vote – as it should have, says Gwen Kitzan, a sheep producer in South Dakota.
“We hear AMS is investigating 40 or 50 cases of vote fraud,” she relates, “when in truth there were hundreds of cases that I know of – and maybe thousands – where the rules were misapplied.”
Kitzan reckons if the rules had been enforced equally, the referendum would have been flamed.
“The U.S. is famous for sending 30 delegates to Third World countries to make sure nothing like this happens,” she notes, “but we can’t run a clean check-off referendum in our own country.”
Lamb feeder Mark Crabill guesses a second vote will defeat the check-off because opposition queries – to pare the board’s bloated 120-member size, to permit refunds and to alter the fat check-off rate – have gone unanswered.
“Let me put it this way,” he offers. “No one who voted against it last February will switch their vote to yes. But a lot of those who voted yes back then will switch and vote no.”
When AMS rescinded the vote, ASI officials expressed shock at the bold action. Why pick on the sheep industry, noted one ASI spokeswoman who complained, “This is how every other referendum has been run.”
She’s right. This is exactly how every other check-off referendum has been run. All were rife with “voting irregularities.”
This time, however, gutsy producers spoke up and got action. Take note, soybean producers, cattle producers, dairy farmers and corn growers.
