No decision yet from Idaho Supreme Court leaves abortion ballot initiative group in the lurch

Yahoo

2 days ago

Anne Henderson Haws, an attorney representing the abortion ballot initiative group Idahoans United for Women and Families, presents opening arguments to the Idaho Supreme Court on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun)
It's been more than 30 days since a hearing in a conflict over the language of a proposed 2026 reproductive rights ballot initiative, but with no decision yet from the Idaho Supreme Court, the group leading the push to restore abortion access in Idaho says the delay is hurting their organizing efforts.
Idahoans United for Women and Families launched its citizen-led initiative effort in April 2024 and submitted proposed ballot titles in August. A new state law also requires a fiscal impact statement to be attached to initiatives, and the group alleged Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican who has been outspoken about his anti-abortion views, and the Division of Financial Management inserted language that was prejudicial. They pointed in particular to a statement that said costs associated with the prisoner population and the Medicaid budget could occur.
Idaho Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion ballot initiative lawsuit
As part of the initiative process, the Attorney General's Office is responsible for drafting short and long ballot titles that summarize what the legislation would do if passed. State law says the language must describe the proposal accurately and use common language without phrasing that is likely to prejudice voters.
The complaint filed by Idahoans United with the Idaho Supreme Court in late January called the statement biased and says it includes contradictory language, 'wrongly implies' that Medicaid and corrections spending would increase, and 'prejudicially includes an irrelevant reference to the state's $850 million Medicaid budget.'
Labrador's office did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, Labrador did not address the fiscal impact statement component of the complaint, and only spoke to the 'fetus viability' language that Idahoans United said was objectionable because it is not medical terminology. Labrador said it is common parlance and there is no difference between that language and 'fetal viability.'
In a separate court filing, officials with the Idaho Division of Financial Management did not speak to the rationale for the fiscal impact statement, but restated the language and denied that it was prejudicial to the initiative.
The Idaho Supreme Court heard arguments April 25, and there have been no updates since then, despite a motion to expedite. The last court battle over ballot titles was in 2023, when Reclaim Idaho said Labrador's office also prejudiced its initiative language about changing the state primary election system.
In that case, oral arguments were held on a Monday and a decision came out that Thursday, with a unanimous vote in favor of Reclaim Idaho. Ultimately, voters overwhelmingly defeated the initiative in the November 2024 election.
Idaho has a citizen ballot initiative process, but only its Legislature can propose constitutional amendments, unlike many other states. So instead of a constitutional amendment, the voters are asked to approve a citizen-crafted piece of legislation to be adopted. The measure requires a simple majority of voters to pass.
Idahoans United submitted a policy that would establish a fundamental right to contraception and fertility treatments under state law, including in vitro fertilization, the right to make decisions about pregnancy and childbirth, legalize abortion before fetal viability, and preserve the right to abortion after viability in medical emergencies.
Fetal viability would be determined by a physician and what treatment is available, but the commonly accepted gestational age of viability in the medical community is 23 to 24 weeks.
The group's spokesperson and lead organizer, Melanie Folwell, told States Newsroom that the delay has forced them to cancel a planned kickoff rally on June 14 at the Idaho Capitol. The rally is now scheduled for June 28, in hopes there will be a decision by then.
The initiative needs more than 70,000 valid signatures from districts across the state, and organizers had hoped to gather 10,000 of those in June alone. But the initiative language must be finalized and approved before any signatures can be collected, and the signature goal must be reached by April 30, 2026, to qualify for the ballot.
'We won't get another June. We won't get another crack at this in the coming months, and there are some real impacts to having to pursue a lawsuit,' Folwell told States Newsroom.
The frustration is not directed at the court, Folwell said, but rather at state offices that crafted the language.
'I can't speculate as to their intent, but in providing us with unclear titles and fiscal impact statement, we have certainly been slowed down,' she said. 'It didn't need to be this way.'
There will also be financial effects, she said, because adding pressure to the timeline will increase the costs associated with mobilizing volunteers and canvassers to gather signatures by the deadline.
Nate Poppino, spokesperson for the Idaho Supreme Court, told States Newsroom in an email that the court does not comment on judicial deliberations, and opinions are issued at the court's discretion.
'Sometimes the issues the court must consider resolve quickly, and sometimes they require longer discussion,' Poppino said.
Each opinion starts with one authoring justice, he said, and a draft is circulated among the other justices who can edit and weigh in before anything is finalized. That includes details like wording and the legal issues involved.
'If it's a situation that involves a dissent, that also is examined by the full court,' he said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX