Idaho Supreme Court rules state officials must re-write abortion initiative ballot statements

The Idaho Supreme Court on Friday unanimously ruled that state officials must redraft explanations of the effect of voting for or against the proposed abortion rights initiative that will appear on voters’ Nov. 3 general election ballots.

The court does not have the authority to write new language, but told the offices of the Idaho Attorney General and Secretary of State that they must submit revised ballot language to the court by 5 p.m. Saturday — around 24 hours after the decision was entered. 

The decision, written by Justice Gregory Moeller, found that neither the “yes” or “no” effect statements met the law’s requirements. 

“A statement is not ‘clear’ if it leaves voters uncertain about a principal legal consequence of their choice, and it does not describe ‘the effect’ of a vote if it materially misstates that consequence,” Moeller wrote. “Conciseness permits Respondents to omit unnecessary detail; it does not permit them to convey an inaccurate picture of the effect of a specific vote.” 

The ballot “effect statements,” required under state law to be a clear and concise explanation of the impacts of a yes or no vote, were written by Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Secretary of State Phil McGrane. 

The state’s high court heard oral arguments Wednesday and issued a speedy ruling as election officials neared a Sept. 11 deadline to be able to send ballots to military and overseas voters. 

Supporters of the initiative, called Prop 1, filed a lawsuit on Aug. 27, arguing that the drafted effect statements of “yes” or “no” votes on the ballot measure were “misleading” and “confusing.” 

Attorneys representing Labrador and McGrane defended the statements in court, arguing they were the clearest and shortest way to inform voters. 

Joe Parris, a spokesperson for the secretary of state, said Friday the office is working to comply with the order.

“We appreciate the Idaho Supreme Court’s prompt review of Proposition One yes-and-no effect statements,” Parris said in an email. “As directed by the court, we are working closely with the Attorney General’s Office to prepare and submit revised statements. We remain focused on meeting all necessary deadlines to ensure ballots are printed and distributed on schedule.”

Why did the Idaho Supreme Court find the ballot statements violated the law’s requirements? 

The proposed initiative, drafted by the group Idahoans United for Women and Families, would repeal Idaho’s strict abortion ban, allowing abortions up to fetal viability or beyond in cases of a medical emergency. It would also enumerate rights related to reproductive healthcare, such as access to contraception and IVF, and privacy in healthcare decisions. 

Under Idaho’s abortion laws, it is a felony to perform nearly any abortion, except to prevent the death of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest in the first trimester with a police report. Doctors may also be sued for a minimum of $20,000 for performing an abortion. 

The effect statements, as drafted by state officials, were: 

“A YES vote would create reproductive rights, including a right to abortion before a fetus’s ability to survive and after a fetus’s ability to survive in cases of a medical emergency, and provide liability protections for healthcare providers.”

“A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law, which protects the life of the unborn while allowing abortion in reported cases of rape or incest, or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.”

The court found that the “yes” statement’s phrasing of “liability protections” did not accurately portray that the criminal and civil liability protection would only be for doctors providing the type or reproductive healthcare outlined in the initiative. 

It also said the “yes” statement’s use of the phrase “the fetus’s ability to survive” was “awkward,” and less clear when other descriptions on the ballot used the term “fetus viability.” The “yes” statement also did not mention that Prop 1 would offer rights to reproductive healthcare and privacy outside of abortion, the justice said. 

The officials’ “no” statements also did not accurately portray the law as it stands, Moeller wrote. The ballot language said the current law allows abortions to “protect the life,” of the mother. However, the law says abortions may be provided to “prevent the death” of the mother, which Moeller said is substantially different. 

“The choice of phraseology matters: ‘protect the life’ reasonably communicates a broader circumstance than ‘prevent the death,’” the decision said. 

The court also found that the “no” statements were unclear because they excluded describing the felony penalties and the time and reporting limitations on the rape and incest exemptions in the law. 

“By presenting these conditional carve-outs from a criminal prohibition as circumstances in which the law affirmatively ‘allow[s]’ abortion, the statement inaccurately enlarges the exceptions and understates the prohibition they qualify,” the justice wrote.

Idaho Supreme Court orders officials to revise abortion ballot initiative language, impact statement

The initiative’s proponents previously sued over the proposed ballot titles, which are the short and longer explanations of the initiative that appear on the ballot. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that Labrador’s office must revise the short ballot title. 

Melanie Folwell, lead organizer of Idahoans United, said that Friday’s decision was a “win for Idaho voters.” 

“Idaho voters deserve ballot language that tells them the truth, and I’m proud that we fought this battle,” Folwell wrote in an emailed statement to the Sun. “We look forward to Secretary McGrane and Attorney General Labrador complying with the Court’s direction and Idaho law.”