Court Upholds Abortion Measure for Ballot Decision

The Arizona Supreme Court has confirmed that the Arizona Abortion Access Act will remain on the ballot for the 2024 general election. This decision comes after Arizona Right to Life challenged the measure’s 200-word description, arguing it was misleading.

In a unanimous ruling, justices upheld a prior superior court decision, concluding that the description objectively reflected the measure’s key points. Chief Justice Ann Timmer stated, “The Description explains each of these provisions and the tests that would apply to restrictions upon that right.”

Arizona for Abortion Access expressed satisfaction with the ruling, emphasizing their commitment to gather votes in support of the measure in November. Meanwhile, Jill Norgaard, spokesperson for Arizona Right to Life, indicated their intention to mobilize supporters to question voters about the proposed constitutional amendment.

Known as Prop. 139, the act seeks to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state constitution, preventing limitations before fetal viability unless a compelling government interest is established. Arizona Right to Life contended that the description lacked clarity on vital issues surrounding fetal viability and medical decision-making.

During the appeals process, attorneys for Arizona Right to Life alleged that the summary omitted critical information, which they claimed misled voters. They argued that the measure’s implications on existing abortion laws were ambiguous and potentially confusing for those who signed the petition.

Judge Melissa Julian of Maricopa County Superior Court previously concluded that the measure’s description adequately communicated its primary provisions and rejected requests for its removal from the ballot. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of this ruling further reinforced the accuracy of the description.

Timmer emphasized, “The Description is not required to explain the Initiative’s impact on existing abortion laws or regulations,” indicating that a reasonable person would infer that laws failing the prescribed tests would be invalidated.

Justice Clint Bolick recused himself from the case due to connections with a state senator, and retired Justice John Pelander stepped in to serve. A request for Justice William Montgomery to recuse himself, based on previous anti-abortion statements, was denied.

The ruling notably highlighted that the justices’ decision was based solely on legal standards regarding initiative descriptions, devoid of personal views on abortion. The court directed the Secretary of State to ensure the measure appears on the upcoming ballot.