BOISE, Idaho – The Idaho Supreme Court has agreed with a pro-choice group that the ballot summary of an abortion measure set for a November vote is worded poorly and has ordered the State to find another way to describe its terms.
The ruling last week concerns Proposition One, also known as the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act. A “yes” vote supports creating a right to reproductive freedom, and a “no” vote opposes creating a right to reproductive freedom. The initiative was organized by Idahoans United for Women & Families, which has complained about the wording of the short ballot title to the state Supreme Court twice.
It prefers ballot language that says:
“A YES vote means Proposition One will become state law. A NO vote means state law regarding abortion will remain unchanged.”
Only in extreme cases does Idaho allow abortions currently, imposing criminal penalties and action on medical licenses when they are performed. Idahoans United for Women & Families is hoping that changes in November when Proposition One appears on the ballot.
Before that happens, state officials will have to rework the wording of the proposal, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The challenged language was:
“YES: A YES vote would create reproductive rights, including a right to abortion before a fetus’s ability to survive and after a fetus’s ability to survive in cases of a medical emergency, and provide liability protections for healthcare providers.”
“NO: A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law, which protects the life of the unborn while allowing abortion in reported cases of rape or incest, or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.”
State law requires a “clear and concise” explanation of the effect of a vote, Justice Gregory Moeller wrote.
“(T)he Yes Statement that Respondents prepared for the ballot tells voters that a ‘yes’ vote would ‘create reproductive rights,’ then identifies abortion rights and ‘liability protections for healthcare providers,’” he wrote.
“It does not convey that Proposition One would create an independent right to reproductive freedom and privacy governing reproductive healthcare decisions beyond abortion.”
The No statement also failed the test. Moeller said it fails to explain existing law fully, as abortions in rape and incest cases are only allowed in the first trimester currently.
“This language accurately identifies the immediate legal consequence of the measure not passing but fails to include language concerning what the voter is supporting with a ‘no’ vote,” Moeller wrote.
Rather than adopt the language proposal of Idahoans United, the court issued a writ of mandamus for officials like Attorney General Raul Labrador to try again. If they choose to use Idahoans United’s language, the court said it would be legally sufficient. It will review the next version, which was to be submitted by Sept. 5.
