Missouri voters will decide on Nov. 5 whether to overturn the state’s abortion ban after the state Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared away a final effort by anti-abortion activists to block a vote on a landmark proposal enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the proposed amendment to the state constitution – called Amendment 3 – will remain on the general election ballot. The decision came less than three hours before a 5 p.m. deadline to finalize the ballot.

The order sets the stage for a final sprint toward Election Day by both supporters and opponents of one of the most potentially consequential ballot measures in Missouri history. The amendment would restore abortion access for the first time since the U.S. Supreme Court ended the federal right to abortion in 2022 while going further, creating an overall right to reproductive freedom that would prevent any future bans on birth control or in vitro fertilization.

Missouri could be the first state – or among the first – where voters overturn an abortion ban since the fall of Roe v. Wade if voters approve the amendment. Eleven states, including neighboring Nebraska, are set to vote in November on measures protecting abortion rights.

A successful vote by abortion rights supporters in Missouri could also alter the political dynamics of the state, where anti-abortion Republicans have been firmly in control for years. GOP lawmakers went as far as mounting an unsuccessful effort over the past two years to raise the voter threshold for changing the state constitution in a bid to thwart the measure.

“Today’s decision is a victory for both direct democracy and reproductive freedom in Missouri. The Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, will appear on the November ballot, giving voters—not politicians—the power to decide on this critical issue,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the primary group supporting the measure, said in a statement.

Shortly after the ruling, leaders from the campaign held a celebratory press conference on the steps of the Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City. “This is what democracy looks like,” they chanted in unison.

Polling conducted last month by Saint Louis University and YouGov found the amendment was on the path toward passage, with 52% of respondents supportive of the measure.

The last-minute courtroom battle centered on an arcane dispute over whether the amendment sufficiently described what laws it would repeal, fulfilling a requirement for ballot measures. Abortion opponents argued it did not, while abortion rights supporters said opponents were misreading the requirement.

Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney at the conservative Thomas More Society who led the legal challenge against the measure, in a statement called the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision “deeply unfortunate” and encouraged voters to educate themselves on the proposal.

“The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision to allow Amendment 3 to remain on the November ballot is a failure to protect voters by not upholding state laws that ensure voters are fully informed going into the ballot box,” Martin said.

Earlier in the day, a group of anti-abortion activists had swarmed around the steps of the state Supreme Court building. The group had dwindled to only a handful after the ruling came down. One of them was Kathy Forck from New Bloomfield, one of the plaintiffs who challenged the amendment in court.

“We are more determined than ever to defeat Amendment 3,” Forck said. “We need to let the Missouri voters know what this Amendment 3 really will do. And I think anybody who knows what it really is going to do would vote no.”

The state’s seven-member high court released a one-page order requiring the amendment to appear on the Nov. 5 ballot, but didn’t immediately issue a majority opinion, leaving its reasoning unclear.

“Opinions to follow,” the order, signed by Chief Justice Mary Russell, said.

The order capped a whirlwind four-day period that put the amendment’s place on the ballot in doubt.

On Friday night, Cole County Circuit Court Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled against the measure after anti-abortion activists filed a lawsuit seeking to toss it from the ballot. Limbaugh, an appointee of Republican Gov. Mike Parson and a cousin to the late conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, found the amendment didn’t comply with a requirement that ballot measures outline what state laws they would repeal.

Lawyers for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom swiftly appealed the decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which in turn handed the case to the Missouri Supreme Court.

“By a majority vote of this Court, the circuit court’s judgment is reversed,” the order said.

Tori Schafer, the lead attorney representing the abortion rights campaign from the ACLU of Missouri, told reporters on Tuesday that Limbaugh’s decision had sided with politicians and threatened “to grind our system of constitutional initiative petition to a halt at the last minute, leaving in its wake the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of voters.”

Martin told reporters she felt voters would not approve the amendment if they knew of its full effect.

“I think if people understood its effects, no one would vote for it,” said Martin.

The amendment would prohibit the General Assembly from banning abortion until fetal viability, defined in the measure as the point in pregnancy when there’s a significant chance the fetus can survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical measures. The amendment allows but does not require, lawmakers to restrict abortion after viability; the GOP-controlled legislature would almost certainly pass a ban on abortions late in pregnancy.

Any post-viability ban would be required to allow at least three exceptions – for the life, physical and mental health of the woman.

‘Contempt’ for Ashcroft?

On Monday, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican and the state’s chief election official, claimed to decertify Amendment 3 altogether, injecting another element of chaos into the legal fight. The amendment was also removed from the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office’s website.

The decertification came just weeks after Ashcroft found that the hundreds of thousands of signatures submitted to place the measure on the ballot were sufficient.

Ashcroft, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for governor this year and staunchly opposes abortion, has consistently attempted to throw up roadblocks in the amendment’s path. Last year he released an official summary of the measure that an appeals court threw out as misleading. Weeks ago, he tried again, releasing similar “fair ballot language” describing the proposal that was later struck down by a Cole County judge.

Missourians for Constitutional Freedom has asked the state Supreme Court to hold Ashcroft in contempt. Shortly after Tuesday’s ruling came down, the amendment reappeared on Ashcroft’s official website.

“I am disappointed in today’s court ruling and curious to read the opinion to see how they came to that conclusion,” Ashcroft said in a statement. “I would encourage every Missourian, before they vote, to read the actual text of this amendment.”

Missouri Solicitor General Joshua Divine, who represented Ashcroft, told the court that Ashcroft was never under any court orders that barred him from removing the measure from the ballot.

In her order, Russell overruled the motion to hold Ashcroft in contempt. Any action taken to reverse Ashcroft’s previous certification “is a nullity and of no effect,” she wrote.

Argument over amendment

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning, Martin said the amendment would repeal multiple state laws and should have been disclosed by the proposal. She focused on the state law that bans abortion, arguing the amendment directly contradicts the law and would effectively repeal it.

“These two provisions cannot coexist. One completely repeals the other,” Martin said.

Martin said the wording of the amendment “does not reveal, on its face, what it’s doing.” She claimed that it would mislead voters.

Judge W. Brent Powell appeared skeptical of some of the case law cited by the attorneys against the amendment. “I’ve not found any cases that analyzed whether and when there was a constitutional provision that may conflict with the statute,” Powell said.

Chuck Hatfield, an attorney representing Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, characterized the lawsuit against the amendment as “political complaints” and an effort to derail democracy. He said a plain reading of the requirement to disclose what laws would be repealed by the ballot measure doesn’t mandate listing what laws would be repealed by implication.

“Constitutional amendments … do not repeal statutes ever,” Hatfield told the court.

While Ashcroft certified the amendment for the November ballot just weeks ago, the text of the amendment proposal has been known since 2023 as supporters gathered signatures. Hatfield indicated that meant that those challenging the measure now have known about the purported problem for over a year, but didn’t file a lawsuit until 19 days ago.

“Their goals are obvious in the timing of their challenges,” Hatfield said.

_____

©2024 The Kansas City Star. Visit kansascity.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.