COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge ruled Thursday that an anti-abortion GOP official used misleading language to summarize a ballot question designed to restore abortion rights in the state.
Cole County Circuit Judge Cotton Walker threw out a description of the amendment as written by the office of Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an abortion opponent.
In his ruling, Walker said Ashcroft's language was “unfair, insufficient, inaccurate and misleading."
Walker wrote a new summary explaining to voters that the measure would remove Missouri's abortion ban and allow abortion to be restricted or banned after fetal viability, with exceptions.
Missouri banned almost all abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Walker's language also notes that the amendment would create a “constitutional right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives.”
At least nine other states will consider constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights this fall — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota.
In Missouri, ballot language is displayed at polling centers to help voters understand the impact of voting “yes” or “no” on sometimes complicated ballot measures.
The summary that Ashcroft wrote said a “yes” vote on the proposal would enshrine “the right to abortion at any time of a pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution.”
“Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women,” according to Ashcroft's language.
Ashcroft spokesperson JoDonn Chaney said the office is reviewing the judge's decision.
“Secretary Ashcroft will always stand for life and for the people of Missouri to know the truth,” Chaney said.
The amendment itself states that “the government shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.”
Assistant Attorney General Andrew Crane defended Ashcroft’s summary in court. He pointed to a clause in the amendment protecting “any person” from prosecution or penalties if they consensually assist a person exercising their right to reproductive freedom. Crane said if enacted, that provision would render any abortion regulations toothless.
Backers of the measure celebrated Walker's decision.
“This ruling confirms what we’ve known all along — our opponents are trying to block a vote in November because they know Missourians overwhelmingly support reproductive freedom and will be voting yes on Amendment 3,” Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement Thursday. “Missourians deserve the chance to vote on Amendment 3 based on facts and today’s decision brings us one step closer to making that a reality.”
Lawyers for the woman who proposed the amendment wrote in legal briefs that Ashcroft's description is misleading and that lawmakers could regulate abortions after viability.
“Missourians are entitled to fair, accurate, and sufficient language that will allow them to cast an informed vote for or against the Amendment without being subjected to the Secretary of State’s disinformation,” according to a brief filed by the plaintiff.
This is the second time Ashcroft and the abortion-rights campaign have clashed over his official descriptions of the amendment.
The campaign in 2023 also sued Ashcroft over how his office described the amendment in a ballot summary. Ballot summaries are high-level overviews of amendments, similar to ballot language. But summaries are included on ballots.
Ashcroft’s ballot summary said the measure would allow “dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.”
A three-judge panel of the Western District Court of Appeals ruled Ashcroft’s summary was politically partisan and rewrote it. Much of Walker's ballot language is based on the Court of Appeals summary.
