Abortion Rights on the Ballot in 2024

Since the Supreme Court eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion in 2022 and state abortion bans took effect throughout the country, there’s been a groundswell of public opposition. In places where citizens have a state constitutional right to directly amend their laws, they organized to counter bans that have gone into effect or were poised to. They voted to amend the Michigan and Ohio constitutions to protect abortion rights. In eight more states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota — citizens placed initiatives on the ballot for this fall’s election. In most of these eight states, abortion opponents in official positions have used their power to try to block or undermine these citizen initiatives—most flagrantly in Florida, Missouri, and Montana. This resource catalogs how. 

Arizona

Proposition 139: Would create a constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability. 

• The Arizona Legislative Council produced pamphlets that refer to fetuses or embryos as “unborn human beings.”
• In April 2024, leaked strategy notes indicated that the Republican majority of the Arizona House was considering referring various measures to the ballot that would compete with, dilute, or otherwise undermine Proposition 139. The legislature ultimately did not pass such a measure.  

Florida

Amendment 4: Would create a constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability.

• Under Florida law, all initiatives are reviewed by the state supreme court before they are approved for the ballot. The attorney general joined private groups in opposing judicial approval. The court approved the initiative by a single (4–3) vote.
• The legislature slipped a million dollars into the marketing budget for Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration, just in time for the agency to create an ad campaign against the amendment, including a government website called “Florida Cares” that claims Amendment 4 “threatens women’s safety.”  
• Under pressure from lawmakers and a recently-appointed Heritage Foundation economist, Florida’s Fiscal Impact Estimating Conference issued a fiscal impact statement for the amendment, which is appearing on the ballot. This statement, which is longer than the actual amendment text, warns that the right to abortion may cost taxpayers, because it could lead to litigation, public funding requirements, and a smaller future population. (What the statement conspicuously does not mention is the opposite possibility, based on effects noted by economists, that increased reproductive choice would increase Florida’s tax revenue, and reduce social welfare costs, by enabling more women to remain in the workforce and improving their health outcomes.)  The state’s chief economist voted against it. Nonetheless, the state supreme court allowed it on the ballot.
• Gov. DeSantis accused the sponsors of ballot signature fraud and launched an investigation of signatures that were already approved by the state last February. He sent police to question individuals who signed the petition.
• His attorneys also directed the Department of Health to threaten broadcasters with prosecution and imprisonment if they run ads in support of the initiative, citing a state “sanitary nuisance” law generally used to protect the public against hazards like overflowing septic tanks. Those threats resulted in at least one broadcaster pulling ads.

Missouri

Amendment 3: Would create a constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability.

• Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey delayed certification of the initiative for nearly two months, narrowing the window for signature gathering,  by trying to force the state auditor to multiply his cost estimate by over 100,000 (from $51,000 to $6.9 trillion).
• Secretary of State Ashcroft drafted a ballot description characterizing the initiative as allowing “dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice.” This language mirrored language courts had rejected in the past. The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously found Ashcroft’s language inaccurate, unfair, misleading, and partisan, and rewrote the ballot description.
• Two state lawmakers joined private anti-abortion plaintiffs to challenge the initiative as insufficiently detailed. Just days before the deadline for printing ballots in August, a trial judge ordered the initiative removed from the November ballot.
• Although the judge stayed its decision pending appeal, Secretary Ashcroft decertified Amendment 3 on his own initiative.
• The Missouri Supreme Court overruled the decision, allowing the proposed amendment to appear on the ballot just hours before ballots had to be printed.
• In an effort to block passage of this amendment, the legislature came close to passing a law aimed at making it harder for citizen initiatives to pass. The measure failed, but proponents have vowed to continue pushing for it.

Montana

Constitutional Initiative No. 128: Would create an express constitutional right to abortion until fetal viability.

• Attorney General Austin Knudsen initially blocked proponents from gathering signatures, claiming the amendment was overly broad. The Montana Supreme Court overruled him.
• Knudson then drafted a ballot statement warning that the initiative would “allow post-viability abortions up to birth” and prevent the enforcement of “medical malpractice standards against providers.” The state supreme court held that Knudsen’s proposal “would prevent a voter from casting an intelligent and informed ballot,” and drafted a new statement.
• Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen reversed a longstanding policy of accepting signatures from inactive registered voters, and reprogrammed the state’s petition-processing software, in an attempt to disqualify signatures; the state supreme court overruled her. 

South Dakota

Amendment G: Would create a state constitutional right to a first trimester abortion.

• After sponsors had met the required signature threshold, the legislature passed emergency legislation allowing signatories to withdraw their signature at any point before the initiative is certified for the ballot. Despite a concerted campaign to pressure the signatories randomly selected by the state for verification to do so, none did, and the initiative qualified.
• Abortion opponents have sued to block this initiative. Although a lower court dismissed the suit, the South Dakota Supreme Court summarily reversed without explanation, guaranteeing that the case will continue past the election and that voting will take place under a cloud of legal uncertainty.  

Other notable developments related to abortion rights ballot measures

• In Nevada, a trial court blocked a comprehensive reproductive rights initiative, holding that it was overly broad. Although that decision was overturned on appeal, the timing of the lower court’s decision forced initiative sponsors to proceed with a narrower initiative focused solely on abortion rights. 
• Nebraska has an initiative that would protect abortion until fetal viability; the state has not interfered in this initiative, but abortion opponents placed a competing initiative on the ballot, raising fears of voter confusion.
• Colorado has a citizen initiative that would ensure public funding for abortion; the state has not interfered with its placement or consideration.
• In Maryland and New York, the legislatures have referred constitutional amendments for a popular vote that would strengthen protections in those states.
• In Arkansas, the secretary of state successfully blocked an abortion rights initiative based on a disputed reading of what documentation the state requires for canvassers. A divided state supreme court affirmed his decision, in an opinion characterized by the dissent as “strip[ping]” away citizens’ direct democracy rights.
• And in Ohio, citizens recently amended their constitution to protect abortion rights, in the face of concerted and sustained opposition from the legislature, the secretary of state, and even the state supreme court. Since it passed, the legislature has considered a bill that would strip courts of jurisdiction to enforce that provision of the constitution. 

Stuart deButts provided research support for this resource.