Latest news with #IdahoansUnited
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
No decision yet from Idaho Supreme Court leaves abortion ballot initiative group in the lurch
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
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Group organizing Idaho abortion-rights initiative files lawsuit over ballot language
The Idaho Supreme Court building in downtown Boise. (Courtesy of the Idaho Supreme Court) The group organizing a 2026 ballot initiative to restore abortion rights in Idaho is asking the state Supreme Court to order the attorney general and other state agencies to fix language it says is biased and misleading about what the initiative will do and how much it will cost taxpayers. Idahoans United for Women and Families filed the lawsuit Thursday night. 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. As part of the initiative process, the Idaho Attorney General's Office is responsible for drafting short and long ballot titles that summarize what the legislation would do if passed. Idaho law states that the language must describe the proposal accurately and use common language without phrasing that is likely to prejudice voters. Idahoans United announced it would pursue the initiative in April 2024, and filed four proposed policies for approval in August. After that, the group moved forward with one proposed policy that would establish a fundamental right to contraception and fertility treatments under Idaho law, including in vitro fertilization, to make decisions about pregnancy and childbirth, and legalizing abortion before fetal viability, as well as preserving 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. In the lawsuit, the group contends that the short ballot title includes the term 'fetus viability,' which is not the medical phrase, and conflicts with the term fetal viability being used in the long title. Melanie Folwell, Idahoans United's spokesperson, said the short title also left out that the law would provide for abortions in medical emergencies after viability. The bigger issue, Folwell said, is with the fiscal impact statement, which is required to be drafted by the Idaho Division of Financial Management, to determine if the new law would cost taxpayer dollars. As written, the statement says the laws affected by the initiative would not impact income, sales or product taxes and have no effect on the general fund. But it goes on to say it could change state expenditures in minor ways. 'Costs associated with the Medicaid and prisoner populations may occur,' it says, citing Idaho Code. 'Passage of this initiative is likely to cost less than $20,000 per year. The Medicaid budget for providing services was about $850 million in FY2024. If passed, nominal costs in the context of the affected total budget are insignificant to the state.' Dan Estes, spokesperson for Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador's office, said they had no comment, citing pending litigation. Reclaim Idaho, a group that pursued an initiative to change Idaho's primary and general election system in 2023, sued over similar issues with their ballot language and ultimately prevailed. The complaint filed in Idaho Supreme Court calls 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 Medicaid budget.' The statement in compliance with Idaho Code, the complaint says, should read that there is no financial impact to state or local governments. The lawsuit includes public records that Folwell requested and received showing email exchanges between Juliet Charron, deputy director of Medicaid and Behavioral Health at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and Greg Piepmeyer, chief economist at the Idaho Division of Financial Management, as well as Lori Wolff, chief administrator at DFM. Wolff is named as a defendant in her capacity as administrator. States Newsroom has reached out to Charron, Piepmeyer and Wolff's office for comment. The emails indicate there would be no impact to the general fund, but one email from Piepmeyer details the possible effects for the female prison population, including the 'rate of pregnancy occurring due to events within prison, and the rate at which each of these is already ascribed to rape or incest.' 'None of these are ones into which DFM ought to wade,' Piepmeyer's email said. 'Similar considerations apply to the Medicaid population, but with (probably reasonably) different rates.' The lawsuit includes a motion to expedite, with a request that a final ruling be issued by the Idaho Supreme Court by April 15. The group has to gather at least 70,725 signatures by April 30, 2026, to qualify for the ballot. The Idaho Supreme Court will determine whether to hear the case in the coming days. If so, and if the motion to expedite is granted, an initial hearing would likely take place within the next month, Folwell said. 1-30-25 Declaration of Melanie Folwell 1-30-25 Verified Petition for Writs of Certiorari & Mandamus SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
