Justice Montgomery’s Impartiality Questioned in Crucial Arizona Abortion Ballot Case, Say Advocates

Advocates for Arizona’s abortion rights ballot measure are urging state Supreme Court Justice Bill Montgomery to recuse himself from a pivotal case. This case will determine whether the phrase “unborn human being” is included in a voter information pamphlet.

“We deserve a fair and impartial hearing,” stated Dawn Penich, spokeswoman for the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign. “Justice Montgomery stepping down would preserve the court’s integrity in public opinion and ensure the validity of direct democracy in Arizona,” she added in an emailed statement.

The campaign’s lawyers filed a motion on Monday, insisting that Montgomery’s past actions and comments disqualify him from being impartial. The motion highlights Montgomery’s history of accusing Planned Parenthood of committing “genocide” and his participation in protests against the organization.

Montgomery’s recusal is not a new issue. Last year, his controversial comments resurfaced during a case involving the reinstatement of an 1864 near-total abortion ban, where he eventually withdrew, citing new information.

The Arizona Abortion Access Act aims to include abortion as a fundamental right in the state constitution. It proposes to nullify the current 15-week gestational ban and restore access to procedures up to fetal viability, generally considered to be between 23 and 24 weeks. This measure also allows for abortions beyond this point if necessary for a woman’s health. Given the large number of signatures gathered, the initiative is expected to be on the November ballot.

Calls for Montgomery’s recusal come shortly after Justice Clint Bolick stepped down from the case. Bolick’s decision followed the involvement of his wife, State Senator Shawnna Bolick, who supported including “unborn human being” in the summary.

Opponents argue that the phrase “unborn human being” echoes the language used by anti-abortion organizations, making it inherently biased. The Center for Arizona Policy and Alliance Defending Freedom, two groups behind many restrictive abortion laws, have frequently used similar terminology.

Arizona’s Judicial Code of Conduct advises judges to withdraw from cases where their impartiality may be questioned. Lawyers for the initiative argue that Montgomery’s previous recusal in a related case last year sets a precedent he should follow now.

“As a private citizen, Justice Montgomery is entitled to his views,” the attorneys stated. “However, expecting the public to believe he can impartially judge this case strains credulity.”

State Supreme Court spokesman Alberto Rodriguez declined to comment on whether Montgomery will recuse himself, noting that the Court cannot discuss ongoing cases.