IDAHO — A legal fight over how Idaho’s abortion rights initiative will be described to voters is moving quickly through the Idaho Supreme Court as election officials face approaching deadlines to print ballots and voter pamphlets.
Idahoans United for Women and Families, the group behind Proposition 1, is challenging the statements explaining what a “yes” or “no” vote would mean. The group argues the language jointly prepared by the Idaho Attorney General’s Office and Secretary of State’s Office goes beyond what Idaho law allows and could confuse voters.
WATCH | A last-minute fight over Proposition 1 is putting Idaho’s ballot wording — and approaching election deadlines — before the state Supreme Court—
The state says the statements were written to help voters understand the effect of their vote.
Proposition 1, formally known as the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot in July after a yearlong signature-gathering effort. The measure would establish protections for abortion before fetal viability and in medical emergencies, along with other protections involving reproductive health care.
The latest dispute emerged after Idahoans United received proposed voter pamphlet pages from the Secretary of State’s Office on Aug. 24. According to the group's court filing, those pages included the “yes” and “no” statements that would also appear on the ballot.
“We were absolutely surprised because we’ve never seen anything like this before,” Melanie Folwell, executive director of Idahoans United, told Idaho News 6.
Under Idaho law, the attorney general and secretary of state jointly prepare a “clear and concise” statement describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote on an initiative.
Idahoans United takes particular issue with the statement describing a “no” vote, which includes a description of portions of Idaho’s existing abortion law.
The group argues that description is incomplete and could confuse voters. In its petition, Idahoans United argues the statement describes exceptions under current law while omitting other provisions, including criminal penalties for doctors who unlawfully perform abortions and limitations attached to certain exceptions. The group also challenges how the statement characterizes Idaho's rape and incest exception.
“Instead of focusing on the content of what they are voting on, a new piece of information is introduced,” Folwell said. “It is incredibly incomplete information and biased.”
Idahoans United is asking the Supreme Court to order the state to use simpler statements. Its proposed language would tell voters that a “yes” vote means Proposition 1 becomes state law and a “no” vote means state law regarding abortion remains unchanged.
The Secretary of State’s Office, however, says the disputed language was jointly developed with the Attorney General’s Office to provide information to voters.
“The yes and no statements in question were jointly prepared by our office and the Attorney General’s Office in an effort to help Idaho voters understand the effect of their vote,” the Secretary of State’s Office said in a statement to Idaho News 6.
The office said the lawsuit comes as election officials are working under tight statutory deadlines. County clerks are preparing ballots for the first absentee ballot deadline on Sept. 18, while the state is also preparing to print and distribute more than 850,000 voter pamphlets.
That pamphlet-printing process is currently paused while the case is before the court, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.
“Our office is aware of the lawsuit filed and is working under tight statutory deadlines as the election quickly approaches,” the statement said. “We are seeking an expedited resolution so our office and county clerks can meet these important election deadlines.”
According to Idahoans United's filing, attorneys for the organization met Aug. 26 with Attorney General Raúl Labrador, Secretary of State Phil McGrane and other state officials in an effort to resolve the disagreement before going to court. The petition says the two offices declined to withdraw the disputed language.
The Idaho Supreme Court has now granted Idahoans United’s request for an expedited briefing schedule, but has not ruled on the merits of the group's claims or whether the ballot language must be changed.
The court ordered McGrane and Labrador to file separate responses by Aug. 31. Idahoans United must file its reply by Sept. 2.
Oral argument is tentatively scheduled for Sept. 9 at 1:30 p.m. The Supreme Court said it retains the discretion to decide the case without oral argument.
The compressed schedule means a decision could come as election officials are preparing the materials Idaho voters will begin receiving ahead of the November election.
