JEFFERSON CITY • A judge has upheld the wording for a dog breeding measure on the Nov. 2 ballot.

In a judgment issued Friday, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem said the ballot summary prepared by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan should stand because it was "neither insufficient nor unfair" under the law.

Beetem used the same words to sign off on Auditor Susan Montee's cost estimate, which voters also will see.

The ruling was a victory for the Humane Society of Missouri, which circulated initiative petitions to get the proposal on the ballot. Known as Proposition B, it would require anyone who has more than 10 breeding dogs to meet certain standards for housing, food and veterinary care. Owners would be limited to no more than 50 breeding dogs.

Karen Strange, a lobbyist for an animal owners group, filed the suit contesting the ballot wording. In a trial last week, her attorney, Chuck Hatfield, argued that the title was biased.

He especially objected to wording that asks voters whether they want to create a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations of the proposed act. He called that phrase a campaign slogan.

Carnahan's office defended the wording, saying that by putting it in quotation marks, the office showed it came straight from the petition. In a statement Friday, Carnahan said she was "pleased the circuit court has found our ballot summary statement to be fair and accurate."

Strange's suit also argued that the measure's cost would be higher than Montee had projected. The auditor estimated it would cost the state $654,768, mainly to hire more animal health inspectors.

Strange said that figure failed to take into account declining fees paid to the state as a result of dog breeders going out of business. She estimated about half the 1,477 licensed breeders in the state would fold if the new rules became law.

Hatfield said it was "highly unlikely" that the animal owners group would appeal.

"We presented the best arguments we could and the judge didn't agree," Hatfield said. "And that's how the system works."

The pro-Proposition B campaign committee, Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, praised the ruling.

"We believe the lawsuit sought to deny voters a chance to speak to the issue of puppy mills," said Barbara Schmitz, a spokeswoman. "We were very confident, because we thought it was a frivolous lawsuit."