7 days ago
Idaho Supreme Court hands down mixed ruling in abortion-rights ballot lawsuit
The Idaho Supreme Court partially ruled in favor of a nonprofit that sued state officials over what the group called 'misleading, inaccurate and prejudicial' proposals for a ballot initiative to let Idaho residents vote on abortions rights and other reproductive health care.
Idahoans United for Women and Families, which formed last year in response to concerns about women's health care, sued Attorney General Raúl Labrador, Secretary of State Phil McGrane and Idaho Division of Financial Management Administrator Lori Wolff in January. The nonprofit said the officials chose confusing wording and left out key elements when crafting the language that could appear on voters' ballots in the future if the measure meets qualifications.
Idaho voters can change or create state law through ballot initiatives, which are also called ballot measures. Proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State's Office, and the AG's office writes 'ballot titles' for the proposal. The titles, a long version and then a shorter version, are what appear on official ballots if enough signatures are gathered to support the proposal.
Idahoans United's measure, which the group called the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, would legalize abortion up to fetal viability or in the event of a medical emergency. It would also guarantee a right to privacy for reproductive health care decisions including contraception and fertility treatments.
The group hopes to have the measure on voters' ballots next year.
The court ruled that the AG's office failed to fully and comprehensively describe all four aspects of the initiative in its short title, but ruled against Idahoans United over its complaints against using the term 'fetus viability,' rather than 'fetal viability,' in the long and short titles.
It also ruled that the long title the AG's office filed was legal and appropriate.
The Supreme Court also ruled unanimously that the Division of Financial Management failed to establish a factual basis for its estimated financial impact and to comply with requirements that its fiscal impact statement be clear and concise. The fiscal impact statement is meant to help voters understand any financial implications of approving proposed legislation.
Lead organizer Melanie Folwell told the Idaho Statesman in a phone interview that the ruling was 'a substantial win on the issues that were of highest priority for us.'
'Today's ruling is a significant victory for fairness and transparency in Idaho's election process,' Folwell added in an emailed statement. 'We are grateful that the Idaho Supreme Court recognized the importance of providing voters with clear, accurate and impartial information about ballot initiatives.'
Representatives for the Division of Financial Management and Idaho Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Both offices were ordered to provide revised documents within seven days of the ruling. Folwell said Idahoans United hopes to have acceptable ballot measure titles by the end of June to begin collecting voter signatures around the state.
It's the second time Labrador has been sued over ballot initiative titles during the Republican's tenure as attorney general. In 2023, Idahoans for Open Primaries won a lawsuit against the AG's office in which the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that Labrador's ballot titles did not comply with state law.
