JEFFERSON CITY — A state appeals court Tuesday shot down Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s bid to inject political language into a ballot question aimed at restoring abortion rights in Missouri.
Acting quickly on a hot-button issue that has been slowed by litigation, the Missouri Court of Appeals at Kansas City unanimously rejected the gubernatorial candidate’s appeal to reverse a lower court decision to strike and rewrite summary statements for six reproductive freedom ballot initiatives.
As part of his job as secretary of state, Ashcroft is tasked with writing ballot summaries for proposed constitutional changes. A physician sued over six petitions she filed after Ashcroft wrote summaries that she said were biased.
People are also reading…
Ashcroft’s language asked if voters wanted to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice.â€
In a ruling written by Judge Thomas Chapman, a three-judge panel of the appeals court agreed Ashcroft crossed a line.
“The Secretary’s summary statements are replete with politically partisan language,†Chapman wrote.
Ashcroft also appealed over the way Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem rewrote the summaries, arguing that he didn’t include language outlining the dangers of abortion.
Again, the court sided with Beetem, saying his summary was “fair and sufficient.â€
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been handling the case for Dr. Anna Fitz-James, cheered the ruling, which came a day after the case was heard in a Kansas City courtroom with Ashcroft sitting with other attorneys arguing the case.
“Today, the courts upheld Missourians’ constitutional right to direct democracy over the self-serving attacks of politicians desperately seeking to climb the political ladder,†the ACLU said in a statement. “The decision from Missouri Court of Appeals is a complete rebuke of the combined efforts from the Attorney General and Secretary of State to interfere and deny Missourian’s their right to initiative process.â€
In a decision in a related case also released Tuesday, a separate three-judge appeals panel rejected arguments seeking to overturn a cost estimate of restoring reproductive rights issued by Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick.
Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain Grove, and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, R-Arnold, had favored a fiscal note showing bringing abortion back to Missouri would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
But the panel disagreed.
“Kelly’s opening brief fails to present this Court with any properly supported legal argument which would permit us to conclude that the Auditor had abused his discretion in discounting the concerns over endangerment of Medicaid funding,†Judge Alok Ahuja said.
Ashcroft, who has been endorsed by Missouri Right to Life as he runs for governor, plans to appeal the ballot summary decision, despite now losing in court two times.
“Once again Missouri courts refused to allow the truth to be known. The Western District essentially approved the language that was entirely rewritten by Judge Beetem. Not only is the language misleading but it is categorically false,†Ashcroft said.
“We stand by our language and believe it fairly and accurately reflects the scope and magnitude of each petition,†Ashcroft added. “My office will continue the fight to preserve an accurate summary for Missouri voters.â€
If initiating a series of courtroom delays is part of the strategy to keep the question off the 2024 ballot, it’s working.
Supporters of ballot initiatives must collect 170,000 signatures in six of the state’s eight congressional districts to get a question on the ballot.
As the courtroom fights have continued, no campaign has emerged to collect signatures for any of the proposals submitted by Missourians for Constitutional Freedom in March.
Missouri would be allowed to regulate the provision of abortion either after fetal viability or after 24 weeks of pregnancy under five of the six proposals, the court said.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom’s October fundraising report showed almost no activity and the treasurer of the campaign didn’t immediately respond to a phone call Tuesday.
Mallory Schwarz, director of Abortion Action Missouri, said continued attacks by the state had delayed the formation of a campaign.
“It is frustrating that any campaign trying to restore access to abortion has been unable to formally come together because the continued attacks by the state have drawn out a process that was supposed to be 54 days to now be some eight months,†Schwarz said.
“They’ve done that with the sole purpose of denying Missourians the right to vote to restore abortion access in our state,†she said.
Other proposed ballot measures
A separate courtroom fight was playing out over a second effort to expand abortion rights in Missouri, a more-restrictive alternative to the slate of proposals that the appeals court ruled on Tuesday.
Jamie Corley, director of Missouri Women and Family Research Fund, challenged the ballot summaries Ashcroft drafted for her proposals in court last week.
Meanwhile, two state lawmakers and a Callaway County abortion opponent filed a lawsuit last week against a fiscal estimate by Fitzpatrick, a Republican.
All of Corley’s six measures would legalize abortions in cases of rape and incest, and three of them would permit abortions through 12 weeks of pregnancy. Currently Missouri only allows abortions in medical emergencies.
The campaign is deciding which version to pursue.
Corley said after a decision is made in the coming weeks, the campaign will set up a committee with the Missouri Ethics Commission and will begin to canvas for signatures.
She said ongoing courtroom wrangling over the final ballot wording won’t stop the campaign from gathering signatures.
“At the end of all of this litigation, we do feel confident that we will have a fair ballot title and a fair fiscal note,†Corley said. “So we feel confident moving forward with signature gathering while that plays out.â€