COLUMBIA, Missouri (AP) — A Missouri judge ruled Thursday that an anti-abortion GOP official used misleading language in summarizing a ballot question seeking to restore abortion rights in the state.
Cole County District Judge Cotton Walker rejected the description of the amendment as written by the office of Republican Secretary of State and anti-abortion activist Jay Ashcroft.
In his ruling, Walker said Ashcroft’s language was “unfair, inadequate, inaccurate and misleading.”
Walker drafted a modern summary telling voters that the measure would repeal Missouri’s abortion ban and restrict or ban abortions even after the fetus is viable, with exceptions.
Missouri banned nearly all abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Walker also points out in his wording that the amendment would create a “constitutional right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception.”
At least nine other states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota – will consider constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights this fall.
In Missouri, polling places display the information on the ballot so voters understand the impact of their vote “yes” or “no” on sometimes complicated ballots.
The summary, written by Ashcroft, said a yes vote on the proposal would “enshrine the right to abortion at any point in pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution.”
“In addition, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women who obtain abortions. It will also prohibit any civil or criminal prosecution of anyone who performs an abortion and injures or kills the pregnant woman in the process,” Ashcroft’s wording reads.
Ashcroft spokesman JoDonn Chaney said the office is reviewing the judge’s decision.
“Secretary Ashcroft will always stand up for life and for the people of Missouri to know the truth,” Chaney said.
The constitutional amendment itself states: “The government shall not deny or impair a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the right to make and implement decisions on all matters related to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postnatal care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful childbirth conditions.”
Assistant Attorney General Andrew Crane defended Ashcroft’s summary in court, pointing to a clause in the amendment that protects “any person” from prosecution or punishment for consensually assisting a person to exercise their right to reproductive freedom. Crane said that if that provision goes into effect, it would render any abortion regulations toothless.
Supporters of the measure celebrated Walker’s decision.
“This ruling confirms what we’ve known all along — our opponents are trying to prevent 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. “Missouris deserve the chance to vote on Amendment 3 based on facts, and today’s decision brings us one step closer to achieving that goal.”
Lawyers for the woman who proposed the change wrote in legal opinions that Ashcroft’s description was misleading and that lawmakers could regulate abortions even when the child’s viability was not established.
“The citizens of Missouri are entitled to fair, accurate and sufficient language that allows them to cast an informed vote for or against the amendment without being subjected to disinformation from the Secretary of State,” the plaintiff said in a brief filed.
This is the second time that Ashcroft has clashed with the abortion rights movement over his official interpretation of the amendment.
The 2023 campaign also sued Ashcroft over the way his office described the change in a ballot summary. Ballot summaries are high-level overviews of changes, similar to ballot language. But summaries are included on ballots.
Ashcroft’s voting summary said the measure would allow “dangerous and unregulated abortions up to live birth.”
A three-judge panel of the Western District Court of Appeals ruled that Ashcroft’s summary was politically partisan and rewrote it. Much of Walker’s stance is based on the appellate court’s summary.
