COLUMBIA, Missouri — A Missouri judge ruled Thursday that an anti-abortion Republican Party official used misleading language in the summary of a ballot question aimed at restoring abortion rights in the state.
Cole County Judge Cotton Walker rejected a description of the amendment as drafted by the office of Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an opponent of abortion.
Walker said in his ruling that Ashcroft’s language was “dishonest, inadequate, inaccurate and misleading.”
Walker wrote a new brief explaining to voters that the measure would repeal Missouri’s abortion ban and restrict or ban abortion once the fetus reaches viability, with exceptions.
Missouri banned nearly all abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Walker also notes in his language 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, ballots are displayed at polling places to help voters understand the impact of voting “yes” or “no” on sometimes complicated ballots.
The summary Ashcroft wrote said a “yes” vote on the bill would “enshrine in the Missouri Constitution the right to abortion at any point during pregnancy.”
“In addition, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations intended to protect women who have an abortion, and will prohibit any civil or criminal action against anyone who performs an abortion and harms or kills the pregnant woman,” Ashcroft’s language reads.
The amendment itself states that “the government shall not deny or violate an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and exercise decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postnatal care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birth conditions.”
Deputy Attorney General Andrew Crane defended Ashcroft’s summary in court. He pointed to a clause in the amendment that protects “any person” from prosecution or punishment if they consensually assist a person exercising their right to reproductive freedom. Crane said that if this provision were adopted, it would render all abortion regulations null and void.
The secretary of state’s and attorney general’s offices did not immediately respond to emails from the Associated Press seeking comment on the ruling.
Supporters of the measure welcomed 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 vote yes on Amendment 3,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement Thursday. “Missouri residents deserve the opportunity to vote on Amendment 3 based on facts, and today’s decision brings us one step closer to making that a reality.”
Attorneys for the woman who proposed the amendment wrote in legal papers that Ashcroft’s description is misleading and that lawmakers can regulate abortions after viability is determined.
“The people of Missouri are entitled to fair, accurate, and sufficient language that allows them to make an informed vote for or against the amendment without being exposed to disinformation from the Secretary of State,” a brief filed by the plaintiff said.
This is the second time Ashcroft and the abortion rights campaign have clashed over his official description of the amendment.
The campaign in 2023 too Ashcroft charged about 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 up until birth.”
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Western District ruled that Ashcroft’s summary politically biased and rewrote it. Much of Walker’s ballot is based on the Court of Appeals summary.
