At least in California it was more like "We voted for this in overwhelming numbers because industrialized animal cruelty does not align with our society's values."[1]
Unfortunately for the chickens, a government is supposed to serve the interests and well-being of its citizens, not that of its livestock (insert joke about there being no difference).
Maybe the majority of the citizens wants to live in a society that is kinder to animals? (That said citizens might not fully appreciate the knock on effects that will have on costs is a separate question. Do people actually want to be kinder to animals if it means eggs cost twice as much?)
Well those people can already buy free-range chickens. This is preventing people who'd rather pay less for cruelly-treated chickens from making that choice.
Given that it's a democratically elected government that made the regulation I don't think there is anything the "people who'd rather pay less for cruelly-treated chickens" can do here other than try to lobby for the rule to be reverted or moving somewhere where animals can be treated "cruelly" without repercussions. It's not always only a question of free market.
Treating the short term adjustment effects of a new rule as the same as the eventual steady state impact of the rule makes arguments against new rules seem deceptive and misleading
