The Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona recently barred the wording of an abortion-related ballot initiative pamphlet that explains a constitutional amendment proposal. The case concerns Arizona Proposition 139, which seeks to enshrine the right to abortion into the Arizona Constitution, safeguarding it from state interference until the point of “fetal viability,” unless a “compelling reason” exists and the restriction remains “the least restrictive way possible.”
Under the Arizona Constitution, fifteen percent of voters can propose legislation. According to Arizona statutes, the Arizona Legislative Council, a legislative committee tasked with administrative duties for the Arizona legislature, must file an “impartial analysis of … each ballot proposal” with the Arizona Secretary of State and provide the analysis to voters in a pamphlet. However, the court found issues with the language used in explaining the state’s current abortion law.
The contentious phrase was found in the Council’s description: “Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks…” Arizona for Abortion Access (AAA) argued that this language was not impartial and requested the court prohibit its use. The defendants contended that the term was impartial because it replicates language in existing Arizona law.
The court ultimately sided with AAA, pointing out that the phrase “unborn human being” carries significant emotional and partisan connotations. In its ruling, the court declared that even accurate and impartial phrases could become biased depending on the context. According to the Arizona Capitol Times, House Speaker Ben Toma plans to appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court, stating, “The ruling is just plain wrong and clearly partisan if the language of the actual law is not acceptable.”
AAA Communications Director Dawn Penich expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, posting on X (formerly Twitter) that the organization is pleased to be one step closer to ensuring Arizona voters receive “accurate and impartial information” about the citizen-led effort before they vote this fall.
For further details, the full article can be accessed via JURIST.