[1] The measure requires Massachusetts farmers to give chickens, pigs, and calves enough room to turn around, stand up, lie down, and fully extend their limbs.

[18] This strategy, and the use of broad-based, non-partisan messaging, allowed consistent success for HSUS; at the time of the 2016 election, voters had passed every state ballot measure banning similar "cruel" confinement.

[25][26] In 1988, a ballot question in Massachusetts would have required the Department of Food and Agriculture to regulate surgical procedures such as castration and de-beaking, methods of transportation, slaughter, diet and housing for farm animals.

[27] The measure was defeated by a vote of 66% to 27%,[28] In each session of the Massachusetts legislature between 2009 and 2015, bills were introduced that would have prevented chickens, calves, and pregnant sows from being confined so that they could not turn around or extend their limbs.

[34][13] The text of the proposed question was submitted to the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey for certification that it complied with the state's constitutional requirements, and received approval on September 2, 2015.

They collected over 130,000 signatures, saying in a press release that they did so without paid assistance;[37] the office of Secretary of State William F. Galvin certified 95,817 of them, more than for any other initiative that year, and sent the bill to the Massachusetts General Court as H. 3930 on December 18, 2015.

[38] The legislature held a hearing in February 2016, at which free-range farmers, veterinarians, and animal protection advocates spoke in favor of the initiative, while representatives of egg and pork producers testified against.

[14] The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were Diane Sullivan, an anti-poverty activist, and James Dunn, a farmer; they were funded by Protect the Harvest, a national nonprofit that opposes restrictions on animal use.

[13] The sincerity of Protect the Harvest's commitment to anti-poverty work was questioned by HSUS president Paul Shapiro, who pointed to "offensive" comments about welfare recipients made by its attorney, Jon Bruning, in 2010.

[13] The court wrote that all the provisions of the initiative were "complementary" and shared the unifying purpose of "preventing farm animals from being caged in overly cramped conditions", and that the text was of an appropriate form for a law.

[14][44] They also questioned why the plaintiffs had delayed their filing so long after Healey's office issued its decision in September, and recommended that future litigants appeal ballot initiatives by February of an election year.

[18] It also went further than California's laws in prohibiting the sale of intensively confined pork and veal products in addition to eggs, making it the broadest anti-confinement regulation in the country at the time of the campaign.

[45][12] The text of the ballot question was as follows:[46] Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?The ballot question was accompanied by the following explanatory text:[46] This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely.

The proposed law's confinement prohibitions would not apply during transportation; state and county fair exhibitions; 4-H programs; slaughter in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; medical research; veterinary exams, testing, treatment and operation if performed under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian; five days prior to a pregnant pig's expected date of giving birth; any day that pig is nursing piglets; and for temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes not to exceed six hours in any twenty-four hour period.

As a defense to enforcement proceedings, the proposed law would allow a business owner or operator to rely in good faith upon a written certification or guarantee of compliance by a supplier.

[52] Although she coordinated with Protect the Harvest and the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, Sullivan primarily campaigned alone, emphasizing her experiences of relying on intensively caged eggs as a cheap source of protein for her family during periods of food insecurity.

[48] The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association opposed the measure, saying that while it did not disapprove of eliminating the confinement practices in question, a state commission was needed to implement more comprehensive and flexible standards.

[53] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals opposed a similar measure two years later in California on the abolitionist grounds that there should be no commercial egg-laying hens, whether in cages or not;[54] however, they did not play a significant role in the 2016 Question 3 campaign.

[66] Even some farmers who used cage-free systems for welfare reasons expressed concern that the question would be decided by voters who did not have experience with agriculture, or appreciation for the complexity of the issue.

[2][63][67] Supporters of Question 3, including some veterinarians, argued that the initiative would have public health benefits, claiming that the stress and high density of intensive confinement systems increases the risk of animal products being contaminated with salmonella and other diseases.

[52] The National Pork Producers Council alleged that the move was part of a "vegan agenda"; HSUS denied this, claiming their interest was in ensuring humane conditions on farms.

The King amendment drew heavy opposition from groups who noted that it would invalidate a wide range of state food-safety, labor, and animal welfare regulations, and it was not adopted into the final bill.

[90] Its filing emphasized that the plaintiff states had still failed to show proper standing, in part because the impact of Question 3 on out-of-state food prices had not been determined, but also discussed the Commerce Clause issue.

The Solicitor General argued that, as the Ninth Circuit noted in its dismissal of Missouri v. Harris, regulations like California's and Massachusetts's treat in- and out-of-state suppliers equally, and are therefore not economically discriminatory in this sense.

This amendment was supported by the New England Brown Egg Council as well as by HSUS, which said it represented an improvement to the 2016 law; it was patterned after similar compromises worked out in other states.

[91] However, the move drew criticism from other animal protection groups as well as from the Massachusetts Farm Bureau, which had opposed the original ballot initiative but said its members had already invested in new buildings compliant with the 2016 version of the law.

[14][85][12] A separate Commerce Clause argument against Question 3 is that the law regulates economic activity outside of Massachusetts borders, making it unconstitutional according to the 1935 case Baldwin v. G.A.F.

She predicts that agricultural interests will attempt to preempt and undo such measures at the federal level, through interventions such as Rep. King's amendment, and recommends that states coordinate and harmonize their regulations and efforts to defend them.

[12] Another, Sean Murphy, argues that these regulations are bad policy despite being constitutional, because they may harm low-income humans while their benefits to food safety and animal welfare are debatable.

Second, individuals may have felt that their personal purchasing decisions did not have a meaningful effect on animal welfare, because others will continue to buy low-welfare products, and believed that voting addresses these free-rider problems.