Article Summary –
The Montana Supreme Court has overruled the state attorney general’s claim that an initiative to protect abortion rights is legally insufficient. The court found that the proposal submitted by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana did not confuse voters nor conflict with other parts of the Constitution. However, the path to getting the initiative on the November ballot is not clear, as the campaign supporting it needs to finalise ballot language, pass it through a legislative committee review, then collect and submit over 60,000 verified signatures.
Montana Supreme Court Overrules Attorney General’s Objection to Abortion Rights Initiative
The Montana Supreme Court on Monday overruled state Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s January finding that a constitutional initiative to protect abortion rights is “legally insufficient.” This ruling resolves one of many hurdles to get the proposal on the November ballot.
Six of the seven justices signed the ruling, authored by Justice Ingrid Gustafson, which found that the proposal by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana didn’t “logroll” distinct subjects. They also found Knudsen overstepped his authority by claiming the proposal would confuse voters and conflict with other constitutional sections.
“CI-14 changes a single subject in the Montana Constitution: the right to decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion. Although voters may agree or disagree with CI-14, they will understand what they are voting on,” Gustafson wrote.
Gustafson’s ruling disapproved Knudsen’s writing of a fiscal note for the proposal when the state’s Office of Budget and Program Planning found that the initiative’s fiscal impact couldn’t be determined.
“Without a determination that a proposed ballot initiative will have a fiscal impact, no fiscal statement by the Attorney General is warranted or provided for by statute,” Gustafson wrote.
While the ruling resolves the initial opposition to placing the abortion issue before voters, the proposal’s future is uncertain. To get the proposal on the ballot, the campaign backing it must finalize language with the attorney general’s office, pass it through legislative review, and collect and submit over 60,000 verified signatures by June 21.
The court declined to review the group’s ‘yes’ and ‘no’ ballot statements preemptively. The court directed Knudsen to “prepare a ballot statement consistent with the statutory requirements and send the statement to the Montana Secretary of State within five days of this Opinion and Order.”
Martha Fuller, CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, expressed uncertainty regarding the group’s next steps. “We urge the AG to approve the clear, neutral ballot statements submitted by MSRR to avoid more litigation and bring Ballot Issue #14 to Montana voters in November,” she said.
The strategy to determine the legality of abortion through voters has been adopted in several states since the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back the longstanding federal right to abortion with the Dobbs decision in 2022. At least five states have ensured reproductive rights protections through constitutional amendments or ballot proposals.
Montana is among the states to consider similar strategies, despite legal precedent that abortion access is protected under the 1972 Montana Constitution’s right to privacy.
Despite garnering opposition from local and national anti-abortion groups, Montana’s abortion ballot proposal has received thousands of dollars from groups like Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana and the liberal dark money group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund. The America Center for Law and Justice, the Montana Family Foundation, and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America filed an amicus brief opposing the initiative, arguing that it bundles various issues and could leave “the lives and safety of unborn children and their mothers unprotected.”
The court’s ruling described parts of Knudsen’s reasoning regarding potential constitutional conflicts as “speculation.” Justice Rice, the lone dissenter on the court, agreed with Knudsen’s assessment that the ballot proposal includes multiple subjects due to its stipulations for abortion before and after viability.
—
Read More Montana News
