Judge Dismisses Pro-Life Challenge Against Ballot Initiative

Arizonans will cast their votes this November on whether abortion rights should be enshrined in the state constitution. This decision follows a ruling late Monday by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Julian. Julian, appointed by former Gov. Doug Ducey, dismissed claims from Arizona Right to Life that the petition for Proposition 139 misled signatories.

The court found no substantial evidence to support the argument that misleading descriptions on the petitions caused confusion among the over 820,000 signatories. This legal battle, however, isn’t over. The final verdict will come from the Arizona Supreme Court.

The question of who will hear the case in the Supreme Court is now contentious. Abortion rights advocates have requested that Supreme Court Justice William Montgomery recuse himself from cases related to Proposition 139. The issue stems from Montgomery’s previous inflammatory comments regarding abortion and Planned Parenthood while serving as Maricopa County attorney.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund is the second-largest financial backer of Arizona for Abortion Access, adding fuel to concerns about Montgomery’s impartiality. Montgomery’s past statements, such as calling Planned Parenthood responsible for “the greatest generational genocide known to man,” have raised questions about his ability to remain unbiased.

Judge Christopher Whitten, another Superior Court judge, previously ruled that the legislative summary’s use of “unborn human being” was emotionally charged and not legally impartial. With the case now at the Supreme Court, the debate over Montgomery’s involvement intensifies.

Attorney Andrew Gaona cited Montgomery’s past comments as significant reason for recusal, emphasizing judicial rules that mandate disqualification if impartiality is reasonably questioned. Gaona stressed that Montgomery’s neutrality is especially doubtful given the nature of this high-stakes case.

This debate gains further complexity as Justice Clint Bolick has recused himself due to a conflict of interest—his wife’s involvement with the Legislative Council approved the ballot’s controversial wording. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer has appointed retired Justice John Pelander to step in for Bolick.

Despite the controversy, Montgomery has not commented publicly on the matter and holds the autonomy to decide on his recusal. The stakes remain high as the Supreme Court’s final decision could significantly affect how the initiative is presented to Arizona voters.