Missourians will vote this November on whether to legalize abortion.
The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh’s decision taking what’s known as Amendment 3 off the Nov. 5 ballot. The court ordered Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who decertified the measure on Monday, to place it before voters.
“By a majority vote of this Court, the circuit court’s judgment is reversed,” Missouri Supreme Court Judge Mary Russell said on Tuesday afternoon. “Respondent John R. Ashcroft shall certify to local election authorities that Amendment 3 be placed on the November 5, 2024, general election ballot and shall take all steps necessary to ensure that it is on said ballot.”
Russell wrote that the reasoning behind the decision would follow in short order.
The ruling was handed down on the final day for decisions on the November ballot. The pro-Amendment 3 campaign gathered thousands of signatures and waded through protracted litigation in order to combat Missouri’s near total ban on abortion.
“Today’s decision is a victory for both direct democracy and reproductive freedom in Missouri,” said Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for the group Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, in a statement. “The Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, will appear on the November ballot, giving voters — not politicians — the power to decide on this critical issue.”
Speaking after the ruling, Tori Schafer, deputy director for policy and campaigns of the ACLU of Missouri, said the decision by the court was a victory for both “reproductive freedom and direct democracy.”
“This case was about whether the people's right to engage in direct democracy would be protected, or if it was just a right in name only, vulnerable to the whims of politicians. Today, the court affirmed that the people will have the final say,” Schafer said.
At issue is a lawsuit from four abortion rights opponents, including state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman and state Rep. Hannah Kelly. They contended, among other arguments, that Amendment 3 failed to tell potential petition signers which laws could be repealed if the ballot measure ends up passing.
Limbaugh agreed with the plaintiffs, writing in his ruling that Amendment 3 did not specify which abortion-related laws would be upended if passed.
In a statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, after the ruling, Kelly said, “The Missouri Supreme Court turned a blind eye and ruled Missourians don’t have to be fully informed about the laws their votes may overturn before signing initiative petitions.”
Mary Catherine Martin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement after the ruling that Amendment 3 will have “far-reaching implications on the state’s abortion laws and well beyond.”
“The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision to allow Amendment 3 to remain on the November ballot is a failure to protect voters, by not upholding state laws that ensure voters are fully informed going into the ballot box,” Martin said.
The Supreme Court also said that Ashcroft had no authority to decertify Amendment 3. But the judges declined to hold him in contempt as amendment supporters had requested.
“The Secretary of State must certify a petition as sufficient or insufficient by 5:00 p.m. on the thirteenth Tuesday before the election,” Russell wrote. “Respondent Ashcroft certified the petition as sufficient prior to that deadline, and any action taken to change that decision weeks after the statutory deadline expired is a nullity and of no effect.”
Ashcroft placed Amendment 3 back on the secretary of state's website after the ruling. He said in a statement he was disappointed with the ruling and added that Missourians should "read the actual text of the amendment before voting."
A whirlwind day
The Supreme Court’s decision capped off a legal scramble that started late Friday night with Limbaugh’s decision.
Because of Tuesday’s ballot deadline, the appeals process took place with lightning speed — with attorneys on all sides having to file detailed arguments in a severely truncated time frame. And the court took the rare step of holding oral arguments on the same day it rendered a decision.
Chuck Hatfield, an attorney for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, argued before the court Tuesday morning that state statute does not require the disclosures that the circuit court decision implied in its ruling.
Hatfield said Limbaugh erred when he interpreted the law to mean a proposed constitutional amendment needed to show how it would affect the state constitution and state statutes.
“It requires a disclosure of what is repealed, and it does not say that the proponents must disclose changes to statutes or the repeal by implication,” Hatfield said. “And that makes sense, because constitutional amendments here, first, do not repeal statutes ever.”
Martin argued it does not meet the constitutional and statutory requirements to be on the ballot because it fails to inform the sections of the law that would be changed.
“These requirements protect voters. They do not undermine the initiative petition process. They are set forth in the constitution and the information statutes in order to protect all Missouri voters,” Martin said.
Political ramifications
The decision is expected to affect the state’s November election.
Because of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom’s enormous financial advantage, even some Republicans who oppose abortion rights were expecting the measure to pass.
“Everything that I'm kind of hearing and seeing, unfortunately, yes, I think it's going to pass,” said state Sen. Jason Bean, R-Dunklin County, on a recent episode of Politically Speaking.
Democrats were banking on Amendment 3 to energize voters and potentially help statewide and state legislative candidates.
“I am grateful the Missouri Supreme Court saw through yet another attempt from the extremist anti-abortion politicians in Jefferson City to keep Missourians from having their say at the ballot box," Democratic gubernatorial nominee Crystal Quade said in a statement. "Voters will overturn Missouri’s cruel ban that has zero exceptions for rape and incest.”
According to a SLU/YouGov poll conducted of 900 likely Missouri voters from Aug. 8-16, 52% of respondents would vote for Amendment 3. And that was before the pro-Amendment 3 groups spent any money on television or radio ads.
Steven Rogers, a St. Louis University political science professor who helped commission that poll, noted that a sizable minority of Republican respondents were willing to vote for Amendment 3 — a dynamic that likely propelled similar initiatives to victory in conservative states.
But the SLU/YouGov poll also showed Republicans, including GOP gubernatorial contender Mike Kehoe, winning statewide contests comfortably — which suggested that the potential bump to Democratic candidates may not be as much as some thought.
In a statement on X, Kehoe said he's encouraging Missourians "to do their research on the far-reaching consequences of this amendment before voting in November."
Official Amendment 3 ballot language:
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:
- establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;
- remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;
- allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
- require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and
- allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?
State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, but unknown impact. Local governmental entities estimate costs of at least $51,000 annually in reduced tax revenues. Opponents estimate a potentially significant loss to state revenue.
This story has been updated with reaction from officials and attorneys involved in the case and Amendment 3 ballot language.
