When former President Trump asked states to decide abortion access, Republicans lined up behind him in support.
“The people are now making up their minds,” Trump said in June, adding that “it’s a beautiful thing to see.”
But conservative state lawmakers and activists are using the levers of government power to keep abortion rights off the ballot in red states or to complicate the process.
They are changing the rules about collecting signatures, inserting anti-abortion language into official summaries, and sometimes suing over the underlying language. Authorities are also using routine measures, such as an estimate of taxpayer costs, to slow the change process.
Supporters of abortion rights and progressive ballot measures say the measures are undemocratic and prevent voters from having their voices heard.
“Politicians are not playing fair games and are changing the rules or changing the goals for local advocates who are trying to advance issues that are important to their communities,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. .
“This is all part of a larger effort to stop people from truly engaging and being part of our democracy and making change,” she added.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the state’s actions related to ballot initiatives.
Abortion protection measures have won overwhelmingly in every state that has voted on them since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Wade in 2022. Nearly a dozen states will try to replicate the success this year, fueling calls for the right to remove the issue from debate. voters’ hands – despite Trump’s position.
“It is not right for democratic societies to vote for the fundamental rights of unpopular minorities,” said Lila Rose, president and founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, in a Facebook post. the social platform. “Abortion is not about the ‘will of the people’, but about respect for the human rights given to us by our creator.”
The ‘impact analysis’ fight in Florida
In Florida, a coalition of abortion rights groups is challenging the state’s official financial assessment of a ballot amendment to protect abortion access and overturn the state’s current near-total ban. The amendment received the green light to be voted on in April by the state Supreme Court, with a conservative majority.
The group Floridians Protecting Freedom asked the state Supreme Court to reject the state’s financial impact analysis, which it says contains misleading anti-abortion language that has “nothing to do” with the amendment’s financial impact.
“This process was important, not only for the Sponsor’s right to a fair presentation of Amendment 4 on the ballot, but for the right of every Floridian to decide for himself, without a thumb on the scale in favor of any outcome, whether support or oppose an amendment to its governing charter,” the group wrote in the petition.
The financial analysis statement accompanies the change in the ballot. Drafting one is often no more than a bureaucratic formality for a panel of state economists, but the abortion statement was developed by three members appointed by the amendment’s opponents — Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), the president of the Florida Senate , Kathleen Passidomo (R), and Florida House Speaker Paul Renner (R).
The analysis said the change could cost the state money due to lawsuits over whether the state will use public funds to subsidize abortions.
The statement also noted that the change would result in “significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year,” which “could negatively affect state and local revenue growth over time.”
Panel representatives said during public hearings that the language is precise and not political.
Exclusive challenges
In Arkansas and Montana, state officials have tried to challenge the number of signatures submitted by abortion advocacy groups to ensure their measures qualify.
Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG) submitted more than 101,000 signatures in support of the proposed constitutional amendment by the July 5 deadline, but Secretary of State John Thurston (R) later disqualified the signatures for what he said was essentially an error of paperwork related to paying colporteurs.
The group filed a lawsuit asking the Federal Supreme Court to annul the disqualification. On Monday, the court ordered Thurston’s office to count all signatures and refused to dismiss the lawsuit.
AFLG Chief Strategy Officer Rebecca Bobrow said the group knew there was the possibility of challenges from anti-abortion activists, but not necessarily from state officials.
“They’re looking for a justification that matches a decision they made,” Bobrow said. “It certainly seems to me that the 102,000 people who signed this petition would feel like their voices would be silenced if this wasn’t passed.”
The amendment would prohibit government entities from restricting or prohibiting abortion services within 18 weeks of fertilization.
In a new filing with the Supreme Court on Monday, Thurston’s office continued to argue that supporters of the ballot initiative did not provide all required documentation.
Thurston’s office said it had no comment on the ongoing litigation beyond what was presented in court.
The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America applauded Thurston, saying in a statement that supporters of the ballot measure were cutting corners.
Meanwhile, in Montana, a district court will hear arguments over whether Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) acted lawfully when she changed election rules to disqualify signatures from inactive voters on three potential November ballot measures.
Jacobsen made the change a week after the deadline for submitting petitions to counties, after some signatures had already been verified.
In the lawsuit challenging Jacobsen’s actions, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights argued that the change upended decades of long-standing practice.
The district court judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering the signatures of inactive voters to be included in the certification process and prohibited Jacobsen from preventing the verification or counting of those signatures while the case continued.
Jacobsen’s office told The Hill that supporters of the amendment are trying to “politicize” the process “at every turn,” while the Secretary of State’s office is simply applying the Legislature’s laws equally, “regardless of the topic or issues.” related parties”.
Arizona summary pamphlet spit
Conservative officials in Arizona tried another tactic.
The Republican-controlled Legislative Council approved the inclusion of the phrase “unborn human being” in a voter summary pamphlet for the abortion rights ballot measure.
State law requires a summary of laws that will be impacted by ballot initiatives, but expressly requires an “unbiased” analysis.
The amendment’s sponsors sued, and a judge last week ordered the board to redraft the summary and remove the phrase “unborn human being.”
House Speaker Ben Toma (R), who chairs the council, said he plans to appeal the decision and in a statement called it “completely wrong and clearly partisan if the language of the law itself is not acceptable.”
Abortion is prohibited after 15 weeks of pregnancy in Arizona, with exceptions for the life of the mother — but not for rape or incest.
The GOP-controlled Legislature narrowly repealed a near-total ban on abortion during the Civil War in May after a massive backlash across the country, including from Trump. Toma was one of dozens of Republican lawmakers who voted against the repeal.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
