Our Opinion: Sore losers plead voters were "misled'

The vote must stand.

Opponents of a constitutional amendment creating a right to farm have filed a legal challenge to overturn the results of the election on the grounds that voters were "deceived" and "misled."

We encourage the Supreme Court to make short work of this lawsuit by dismissing it outright.

If a constitutional amendment withstands a recount and is certified, it can be challenged legally on the grounds that is is unconstitutional or amended or repealed by a subsequent constitutional change.

If ballot issues can be undone based on arguments voters were misled, the possibilities for havoc and anarchy are endless.

Arguments that ballot language is vague or misleading must be - and frequently are - challenged in court prior to elections.

Challenges that result in new language after ballots are printed already create turmoil and escalate costs. An argument can be made to move up the deadline for legal challenges to diminish those incidents, but at least the language issues are resolved prior to the vote.

We opposed the Right to Farm amendment because we believe it is unfair to single out one industry - agriculture - as a constitutionally protected class.

The voters decided otherwise. The vote was close, but a simple majority was sufficient for approval.

Were voters misled? Were they deceived? Were they informed? Did proponents "sneak it through," as often is alleged?

Those are "sour grapes" arguments by sore losers.

"I think that ballot language made all the difference in the election," said Wes Shomeyer, president of Missouri's Food for America, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

That's his opinion.

We all are permitted, and encouraged, to express our opinions to our elected representatives and, directly, by our votes in local, state and federal elections.

Sometimes we're on the prevailing side. When we're not, there's virtue in being graceful in defeat.