JEFFERSON CITY — In another rebuke to Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Cole County judge on Thursday rejected the Republican elections chief’s “fair ballot language†for the Nov. 5 abortion-rights question, saying it violated state law.
Cole County Circuit Judge Cotton Walker rewrote a statement drafted by Ashcroft’s office that was to be displayed at polling places alongside copies of sample ballots. State law requires the statements to “fairly and accurately†state what a vote for or against a measure would represent.
But Walker, a Republican, said Ashcroft’s version is “unfair, inaccurate, insufficient and misleading and is hereby vacated.â€
In this case, Ashcroft’s fair ballot language said a “yes†vote would enshrine abortion rights “at any time of a pregnancy,†bar abortion regulations “designed to protect women†and prohibit legal recourse “against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.â€
People are also reading…
The pro-abortion rights side sued to strike down the wording in an Aug. 16 lawsuit.
On Thursday, following a trial the day before, Walker revised the summary to say a “yes†vote “establishes a constitutional right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid; removes Missouri’s ban on abortion; allows regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient; requires the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and allows abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman.â€
The new “fair ballot language†statement closely tracks a separate court-approved summary of the abortion question to be printed on the Nov. 5 ballot. Courts last year jettisoned a ballot summary Ashcroft had drafted.
Ashcroft did not immediately commit to appealing the ruling. “We are reviewing the court’s decision,†said JoDonn Chaney, Ashcroft spokesperson, in an email. “Secretary Ashcroft will always stand for life and for the people of Missouri to know the truth.â€
Attorneys for Amendment 3 had argued the court-ordered ballot summary and the Ashcroft-drafted fair ballot language conflicted and sowed confusion about the measure’s effects.
For example, the Ashcroft draft said the amendment would create a right to an abortion “at any time.â€
But the attorneys noted the court-approved summary says the amendment allows abortion to be restricted or banned after fetal viability. (The language goes on to note abortions would still be allowed after that point to “protect the life or health of the woman.â€)
Attorneys also said Ashcroft’s claim that regulations wouldn’t be allowed conflicted with the summary statement saying the measure would allow “regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient.â€
“There is no way to reconcile these conflicting statements,†attorneys for Amendment 3 said in a pre-trial brief. “The Secretary’s actions sow confusion about the effects of the measure, which infringes upon the right to initiative petition and burdens the free exercise of the right to vote.â€
Walker agreed. “It is not possible to reconcile these conflicting statements,†he said. “Intentional or not, the Secretary’s language sows voter confusion about the effects of the measure.â€
The Missourians for Constitutional Freedom campaign called Thursday’s ruling a “clear victory†for Missouri voters.
“Once again, the courts have affirmed that politicians cannot use deceptive and misleading ballot language to distort the truth,†Rachel Sweet, campaign manager, said in a statement.
Tori Schafer, an attorney for the ACLU of Missouri who argued the case against the language Wednesday, said in a statement Ashcroft “left the court with no decision but to throw out and rewrite his statement to accurately reflect what Amendment 3 will do when it passes in November.â€
Lawmaker lawsuit
The abortion question could be wiped from the Nov. 5 ballot entirely if a separate lawsuit is successful.
A trial is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Friday in Cole County on the lawsuit, filed by state Rep. Hannah Kelly, state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, anti-abortion activist Kathleen Forck of New Bloomfield and Marguerite “Peggy†Forrest, president and CEO of Our Lady’s Inn.
The plaintiffs argue the pro-abortion rights campaign failed to meet constitutional requirements by not specifying statutes and constitutional provisions in the amendment text that would be repealed if voters approve Amendment 3.
They also say the measure includes multiple subjects in violation of the state constitution.
Attorneys for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom argued in a brief filed Friday that the court should schedule the hearing after the Sept. 10 deadline for adding or removing measures from the ballot.
Lawyers for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom said the other side was seeking to have the court render a decision striking Amendment 3 from the ballot with no time for an appeal.
“This rush to judgment would irreparably harm Intervenors (Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom) and the thousands of voters who signed petitions to put Amendment 3 on the ballot,†the filing said. Dr. Anna Fitz-James is a retired Missouri physician.
It went on to request that the court try the case after Sept. 10, “which would still allow Plaintiffs to obtain complete relief through a judgment that Amendment 3 is void even if adopted.â€
On Wednesday, Limbaugh scheduled the trial for Friday.