Missouri Supreme Court puts abortion amendment back on ballot

This November, Missourians will vote on whether to legalize abortion.

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh's decision to remove so-called Amendment 3 from the Nov. 5 ballot. The court ordered Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft to put the bill, which had rejected it on Monday, before voters.

“By a majority decision of this Court, the district court's judgment is reversed,” Missouri Supreme Court Justice Mary Russell said Tuesday afternoon. “Defendant John R. Ashcroft will certify to local election officials that Amendment 3 will be placed on the ballot for the November 5, 2024 general election and will take all necessary steps to ensure that it is on said ballot.”

Russell wrote that the reasons for the decision would follow shortly.

The ruling was announced on the last day of voting in November. The pro-Amendment 3 campaign collected thousands of signatures and fought through lengthy court proceedings to fight Missouri's near-total abortion ban.

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

Tori Schafer, deputy director of policy and campaigns for the ACLU of Missouri, said after the ruling that the court's decision was a victory for both “reproductive freedom and direct democracy.”

“This case was about whether the people's right to direct democracy is protected or whether it is just a right on paper, subject to the whims of politicians. Today the court confirmed that the people have the final say,” Schafer said.

The case is a lawsuit filed by four anti-abortion activists, including Senator Mary Elizabeth Coleman and Representative Hannah Kelly, who alleged, among other things, that Amendment 3 did not tell potential petition signers which laws could be repealed if the proposal passes.

Limbaugh agreed with the plaintiffs, writing in his ruling that the Third Amendment does not specify which abortion-related laws would be repealed if passed.

In a statement posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) after the ruling, Kelly said, “The Missouri Supreme Court looked the other way and ruled that Missourians do not need to be fully informed of the laws their vote may overturn before signing ballot initiatives.”

Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement after the ruling that Amendment 3 would have “far-reaching implications for the state's abortion laws and far beyond.”

“The Missouri Supreme Court's decision to keep Amendment 3 on the November ballot is a voter protection violation because it disregards state laws designed to ensure voters are fully informed when they go to the polls,” Martin said.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Ashcroft did not have the authority to invalidate Amendment 3. However, the justices declined to hold him in contempt of court, as the amendment's supporters had requested.

“The Secretary of State must certify an application as sufficient or insufficient by 5:00 p.m. on the thirteenth Tuesday before the election,” Russell wrote. “Defendant Ashcroft certified the application as sufficient before the expiration of that deadline, and any action to alter that determination weeks after the expiration of the statutory deadline is void and of no effect.”

Following the ruling, Ashcroft reinstated Amendment 3 on the State Department's website. In a statement, he expressed disappointment with the ruling and added that Missourians should “read the actual text of the amendment before voting.”

A turbulent day

The Supreme Court's decision was the culmination of a legal wrangling that began late Friday night with Limbaugh's decision.

Because Tuesday was the deadline for filing votes, the appeals process was carried out at breakneck speed. Lawyers for all sides had to present detailed arguments in a greatly reduced time frame. And the court made a rare use of oral arguments on the same day it issued its decision.

Chuck Hatfield, an attorney with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, argued in court Tuesday morning that state law does not require the disclosures that the district court implied in its ruling.

According to Hatfield, Limbaugh made a mistake when he interpreted the law to mean that a proposed constitutional amendment must show what effect it would have on the state constitution and state laws.

“It requires disclosure of what is being repealed, and it does not say that proponents have to disclose changes to laws or implied repeal,” Hatfield said. “And that makes sense because constitutional amendments never repeal laws here, first of all.”

Martin argued that the bill did not meet the constitutional and legal requirements for a vote because it did not disclose which sections of the law would be amended.

“These requirements protect voters. They do not undermine the ballot initiative process. They are enshrined in the Constitution and information laws to protect all voters in Missouri,” Martin said.

Political implications

The decision is expected to impact the state's elections in November.

Because of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom's enormous financial advantage, even some Republicans who oppose abortion rights expected the measure to pass.

“From everything I hear and see, I unfortunately believe the bill will pass,” State Senator Jason Bean (R-Dunklin County) said on a current episode of Politically Speaking.

Democrats were counting on Amendment 3 to mobilize voters and potentially help candidates for state legislative seats.

“I am grateful that the Missouri Supreme Court has seen through yet another attempt by the extremist anti-abortion activists in Jefferson City to prevent Missourians from having a say at the ballot box,” Democratic gubernatorial candidate Crystal Quade said in a statement. “Voters will repeal Missouri's cruel ban, which makes no exceptions for rape and incest.”

Accordingly a SLU/YouGov survey A poll of 900 likely voters in Missouri conducted August 8-16 found that 52% of respondents would vote for Amendment 3. And that was before pro-Amendment 3 groups even spent any money on television or radio ads.

Steven Rogers, a political scientist at St. Louis University and co-creator of the poll, found that a sizable minority of Republican respondents were willing to vote for Amendment 3—a dynamic that has likely helped similar initiatives succeed in conservative states.

However, the SLU/YouGov poll also found that Republicans, including Republican candidate for governor Mike Kehoe, comfortably won the statewide election, suggesting that the Democratic candidates' potential lead may not be as large as some expected.

In a statement on X, Kehoe said he encourages Missourians to “educate themselves about the far-reaching consequences of this legislative change before voting in November.”

Official voting language for Amendment 3:

Would you like to amend the Missouri Constitution as follows:

• introduce a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception, and consider any state interference with this right to be invalid;
• Repeal of the abortion ban in Missouri;
• enable regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
• to require the Government not to discriminate in government programs, funding and other activities against persons who provide or receive reproductive health care; and
• Do you allow abortions to be restricted or prohibited after the viability of the fetus unless doing so protects the life or health of the woman?

State officials say there will be no costs or savings, but the impact is unknown. Local officials estimate the cost in lost tax revenues to be at least $51,000 per year. Opponents say there is a potentially significant loss of state revenue.

This story has been updated with reactions from officials and attorneys involved in the case, as well as the Amendment 3 voting language.