JEFFERSON CITY • A Cole County judge heard a case Monday that could determine whether state voters get a say this November in the long-running debate over dog breeding.

The industry's critics contend that lax regulation has made Missouri the puppy mill capital of the country. The Legislature, however, has sided with breeders, who say excessive regulation could doom animal agriculture in all forms.

To go straight to voters, the Humane Society of Missouri circulated initiative petitions to get new breeding rules on the Nov. 2 ballot. Last week, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan certified the petitions as containing enough signatures.

Now, an animal owners group says the ballot title that Carnahan wrote is biased and unfair. In court Monday, the group's attorney, Chuck Hatfield, zeroed in on the phrase that says violation of the proposed act would be a new misdemeanor called "puppy mill cruelty."

"The phrase 'puppy mill cruelty' is a campaign slogan that doesn't belong in the secretary of state's objective summary," Hatfield said.

He also argued that Auditor Susan Montee had underestimated the cost of enforcing the new breeding rules in a fiscal impact statement that voters would see.

Attorneys for the state said the ballot wording adequately described the initiative and its likely costs. By putting quotation marks around the words "puppy mill cruelty," Carnahan showed that the words came straight from the petition, said Assistant Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan.

After the daylong trial, Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem took the case under advisement. He is expected to rule on the issue this week. If he agrees with the breeders, the judge could rewrite the ballot wording.

If that happens, the animal owners group plans to file another suit to try to keep the proposal off the ballot, because people who signed the petitions read the current wording.

The proposal, known as Proposition B, 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.

Dog breeders filled the benches in the courtroom on Monday to hear arguments in the lawsuit, which was filed by Karen Strange, a lobbyist for the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.

Strange testified that her group's goal was to "protect against the animal rights movement" on behalf of all forms of agriculture, including pet breeders, poultry farmers, pork producers and exotic animal owners.

She projected that about half of the 1,477 licensed dog breeders in the state would go out of business if Proposition B passes.

She said breeders couldn't afford the proposed dog housing regulations, which would roughly double the amount of indoor space required for each dog, prohibit stacked cages and outlaw wire flooring.

As a result, the state would lose the licensing fees those breeders pay, Strange said. The state charges breeders a $100 base fee plus $1 per puppy sold, with the total fee capped at $500 a year.

In the ballot title, the state auditor estimated that the proposal would cost the state $654,768. Most of the money would pay for more animal health inspectors.

Strange contended that when lost licensing fees were taken into account, the state's cost would be closer to $1.1 million.

Kelly Brown, who breeds about 250 French bulldogs and Yorkies in Newton County, testified that she would probably go out of business if the measure passed. She said her family depends on the income to subsidize the rest of the farm.

"If I'm reduced down to 50 dogs, it won't provide the cash flow that our operation requires," Brown said.

About 500 of the 1,477 licensed breeders in the state have more than 50 dogs, according to the Missouri Department of Agriculture.

Heidi Doerhoff Vollet, an attorney for the Humane Society of Missouri, said the proposal might increase the state's license revenue if breeding became concentrated among small-scale breeders, who each paid the $100 base fee.

Vollet said the auditor's fiscal note met the standard set by an appellate court to be "reasonably accurate" and "reasonably impartial."