Skip Navigation
Analysis

State Courts Can Provide Much-Needed Protection From Voter Deception

This past election, some state courts stepped in to protect the citizen initiative process from state-sponsored deception, while others refused. Their decisions influenced election outcomes.

January 7, 2025
Citizens signing petition for proposed amendment
Ed Zurga/AP
View the entire Direct Democracy collection

In the 2024 election, advocates placed several hot-button initiatives on state ballots, with varied results. Abortion rights initiatives passed in conservative states like Missouri, Montana, and elsewhere, while similar initiatives failed in Florida, South Dakota, and Nebraska. In Ohio, an initiative that would have ended partisan gerrymandering failed, though similar initiatives have passed in previous elections in Arizona, Michigan, and California.

While numerous factors drove these divergent outcomes — Florida’s constitution requires a supermajority of 60 percent to approve any amendment, for example — state courts played a key role as well. Initiatives fared better in states like Missouri and Montana, where courts intervened to protect voters from state-sponsored disinformation, than in Florida and Ohio, where courts refused to do so.

In Missouri, once a citizen initiative has been approved for the ballot, the secretary of state drafts a description to appear alongside it. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an avowed abortion opponent, drafted an inflammatory and negative description for that state’s abortion rights initiative. The secretary’s description falsely stated that the initiative would allow “dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice.” Supporters of the initiative sued.

Read the rest of the article at State Court Report >>