JEFFERSON CITY— The ACLU of Missouri argued in Cole Circuit Court that the Secretary of State’s certified ballot language for HJR 73, now titled Amendment 3, is “unfair and inaccurate,” and that the General Assembly violated the Missouri Constitution’s single-subject rule by combining unrelated policies into one proposed amendment.
The lawsuit asks the court to block Amendment 3 from appearing on any ballot for multiple violations of the single-subject clause or, at minimum, to order new ballot language that fairly and accurately describes the measure and its consequences.
In the briefing, the challengers contend that the General Assembly exceeded its limited authority to propose constitutional amendments under Article XII, Section 2(b), which requires legislatively referred measures to contain only “one subject and matters properly connected therewith.”
ACLU argues HJR 73 is “blatant logrolling” because it packages reinstating abortion restrictions with a ban on gender-transition care for minors and additional provisions that regulate where lawsuits may be filed and when the Attorney General must be notified or allowed to intervene.
According to the filing, those subjects are “not connected or germane to a common theme” and therefore must be presented to voters separately.
The suit also targets the summary statement prepared by the General Assembly and the “fair ballot language” prepared by the Secretary of State, asserting both are misleading, argumentative, and omit core facts needed for voters to make an informed decision.
Chief among those omissions, the challengers say, is that HJR 73 would repeal Article I, Section 36—the constitutional amendment Missourians approved in November 2024 by 51.6% of the vote that enshrined a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including protections related to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care and respectful birthing conditions.
The filing maintains that courts have required ballot summaries to disclose when a proposal would undo a recently adopted constitutional provision and argues the failure to do so here is “unfair and insufficient.”
The court document traces the dispute to developments following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, 2022, after which Missouri’s pre-enacted abortion restrictions took effect. In response, an initiative campaign led by Dr. Fitz-James submitted petitions to establish a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, ultimately resulting in Amendment 3’s adoption in 2024.
The challengers say the General Assembly then advanced HJR 73 “within a few months” to “undo” that vote.
They note the resolution’s title — “relating to reproductive health care” — and argue that nearly all of its subsections concern abortion and pregnancy-related medical care, except for two outliers: a subsection prohibiting gender-transition care for minors and a subsection changing court-filing venues and notice requirements to the Attorney General.
On the single-subject question, the lawsuit maintains that “reproductive health care,” as used in HJR 73 and in the voters’ 2024 amendment, concerns pregnancy and abortion care — not gender transition.
It highlights definitions within HJR 73 that frame “gender transition surgeries,” “cross-sex hormones,” and “puberty-blocking drugs” as treatments provided “for the purpose of assisting an individual with a gender transition,” asserting these are “totally unrelated” to abortions or medical emergencies associated with pregnancy.
The brief further argues that the litigation-procedure subsection — requiring certain cases to be filed in Cole County and granting the Attorney General a right to intervene upon notice of a constitutional question — concerns civil procedure rather than reproductive health and thus also violates the single-subject rule.
Beyond subject-matter constraints, the plaintiffs say the summary statement and fair ballot language use “politically-charged” phrasing and make claims that either mirror rights already guaranteed by Article I, Section 36 or misdescribe HJR 73’s probable effects.
Examples cited in the filing include statements that HJR 73 would “guarantee access to care for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and medical emergencies,” “ensure women’s safety during abortions,” and “allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape and incest,” which the challengers argue imply new protections when current constitutional protections already exist.
They also challenge language stating HJR 73 would “protect children from gender transition” as intentionally argumentative rather than neutral, contending this wording creates prejudice for the measure.
At the close of the hearing, Tori Schafer, Director of Policy and Campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri, said the case is about upholding the people’s power to amend their constitution and to receive fair, single-subject ballot measures.
“The General Assembly’s authority is derived from the people, and the people reserved the sole power to amend the state constitution to protect ourselves from an oppressive and controlling government,” Schafer said. “Even the limited carve out for the General Assembly must be approved by a majority of voters and is constitutionally required to provide fair and accurate language while only containing one subject. Amendment 3, passed as HJR 73, violates both of those constitutional requirements.”
Schafer argued that lawmakers “failed to listen” before Missourians adopted reproductive freedom protections last year and now seek to “repackage the question with empty protections[and] biased language” while combining “several unrelated topics” to “mislead voters so they can reinstate the abortion ban in Missouri.”
“Anti-abortion politicians know they are out of touch with voters, which is why they don’t say that Amendment 3 eliminates the fundamental right to reproductive freedom; abolishes explicit constitutional protections for abortion access, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control and respectful birthing conditions; and would overturn protections against prosecution for physicians related to pregnancy outcomes,” Schafer said.
The lawsuit asks the court to enjoin respondents from placing HJR 73/Amendment 3 on the ballot on single-subject grounds.
If the court disagrees, the challengers request that it certify a new, legally compliant summary statement and fair ballot language that “truthfully describe the consequences of this Amendment.”
The filing asserts that because “the power to amend the Constitution resides with the people,” any legislative proposal must strictly comply with constitutional restraints — particularly the prohibition on logrolling — and that both the measure’s structure and its ballot language fail that test.
