Montana Supreme Court says abortion ballot proposal can move forward

The Great Seal of the State of Montana in the Supreme Court (Photo by Eric Seidle/ For the Daily Montanan).

The Montana Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Attorney General’s Office incorrectly stopped a proposed constitutional amendment ballot initiative to protect abortion rights, clearing the way for the proposal to move forward.

While the group trying to get Constitutional Initiative 14 on November’s ballot called the court’s 6-1 ruling in their favor a victory, the proposal will still need its ballot statement finalized by Attorney General Austin Knudsen. After that, it will go through a legislative committee meeting before supporters can begin collecting more than 60,000 signatures from 40 state House districts by June 21.

“Montanans deserve to make their voices heard at the ballot box on this issue, and (Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights) has been confident in the legality of Ballot Issue #14’s submitted language all along,” said Martha Fuller, the CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, which is part of the group behind the proposal. “We are pleased to see the Montana Supreme Court conclude that not only is the initiative language constitutionally sound, but also that the Attorney General cannot attach a misleading fiscal note when there is no fiscal impact.”

The proposal would amend the Constitution, if passed by voters, to affirm the right for Montanans to make their own pregnancy decisions in the state Constitution. It would prohibit the government from denying abortion access before a fetus is viable, and prevent the government from restricting abortion access when it is necessary to protect the mother’s health or keep abortion practitioners from licensing or criminal punishment.

The 6-1 opinion from the majority marks the second time that a proposed 2024 ballot initiative has initially been found to be legally insufficient by the Attorney General’s Office, only to have that opinion overturned by the Supreme Court. The lone dissenting opinion came from associate justice Jim Rice.

In November, the court also agreed that Knudsen’s insufficiency finding for a top-four primary proposal did not contain separate subjects, as his office had initially ruled. In Monday’s ruling, the justices said the abortion ballot issue case was similar.

Knudsen’s office in January ruled that CI-14 “logrolls multiple distinct political choices into a single initiative” and that the initiative should carry a fiscal statement because the Office of Budget and Program Planning prepared a fiscal note that included concerns about possible effects to Medicaid coverage, while also saying the fiscal impact beyond the next two years could not be determined.

But Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights challenged the legal insufficiency finding and the fiscal statement in late January, saying the proposal as a whole involved abortion access, and the fiscal statement would be wrong to include because it contained “improper advocacy.” They asked the Supreme Court to review and overturn Knudsen’s office’s decision.

The Attorney General’s Office maintained that the multiple sections of the proposal would create confusion for voters and should be separate amendments.

But the six justices who signed on to the majority opinion disagreed, saying that the Attorney General’s Office “erred” in its legal insufficiency finding on the single-subject question. The state Supreme Court also said there is no basis for the office to include a fiscal statement with the ballot statement because the Office of Budget and Program Planning determined the amendment would cause no fiscal impact during the next two years, and that the fiscal impact beyond that could not be determined.

“CI-14 effects a single change to the Montana Constitution on a single subject: the right to make decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,” the majority wrote, led by Justice Ingrid Gustafson. “If CI-14 is placed on the ballot, voters may ultimately agree or disagree with the proposed change that CI-14 offers, but they will be able to understand what they are being asked to vote upon because CI-14 does not effect two or more changes that are not substantive and closely related. If CI-14 is adopted, questions may arise as to its interpretation, but this is true of the entire text of the Montana Constitution and its subsequent amendments, and processes exist to resolve those questions accordingly.”

The justices wrote that Knudsen had not offered support for his office’s claim that the proposed amendment could remove abortion protections contained elsewhere in the Constitution. They said his arguments about how the amendment might interact with abortion protections under the 1999 Armstrong v. State decision, as well as with other statutes and regulations, exceeded his authority.

Meanwhile, Rice, who authored the dissenting opinion, wrote that he agreed with Knudsen’s office’s findings that the proposal made two or more changes to the Constitution because the wording of certain sections of the initiative provide “a new and at least partially independent substantive concept.”

“CI-14 alters, or defines in a new way, existing legal concepts and creates an internal, unresolved conflict within its provisions. As such, it is virtually impossible, in my view, for a voter to fully comprehend the effects of its multiple provisions,” Rice wrote.

A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office, asked for comment on the majority’s ruling, pointed the Daily Montanan to a statement it provided to the Helena Independent-Record saying it would comply with the order.

“The dissent had it right in agreeing with the Attorney General that the proposal violates the Montana Constitution’s prohibition on logrolling multiple amendments in a single ballot issue,” spokesperson Emilee Cantrell said. “The dissent also correctly stated that CI-14 will lead to unnecessary voter confusion and should have been withheld, as it’s internally contradictory. We will comply with the order.”

There are still hurdles for Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, however. Knudsen will determine what the official ballot statement says and could modify it from what the group submitted. Then, a legislative committee will review the proposal and take a vote that will be reflect on the proposal of whether the committee supports it.

Once that is complete, the group will be able to start collecting signatures. But they warned in a court filing last week that time is running out to gather the necessary signatures.

Fuller, speaking on behalf of the group that also includes the ACLU of Montana and Forward Montana, said she hoped Knudsen’s office would not substantively change the language the group has submitted for a ballot statement.

“We urge the Attorney General to approve the clear, neutral ballot statements submitted by Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights with haste to avoid more unnecessary litigation,” the group said in a joint statement Tuesday. “…Now is the time for Montanans to come together and secure their right to abortion – once and for all. We will do everything we can to ensure that Montanans have their say in November.”

msrr-supreme-court

The post Montana Supreme Court says abortion ballot proposal can move forward appeared first on Daily Montanan.