On Friday, Sept. 4, the Idaho Supreme Court approved a revised version of Proposition One’s text for this fall’s ballot. The proposition itself is focused on reestablishing rights to personal healthcare decisions without interference from the government, specifically focusing on reproductive health.
According to Idaho Statesmen, in August, Idahoans United for Women and Families sued the Idaho Attorney General and Idaho Secretary of State. Idahoans United cited that the wording they used for the two options was biased and could mislead voters.
The case was brought before the Idaho Supreme Court, and in a unanimous decision, the court agreed with Idahoans United. The Supreme Court gave the state of Idaho 24 hours to comply because the deadline for absentee ballots was approaching quickly. In their decision, Justice Gregory Moeller said that the “yes” statement did not fully explain the initiative, while the “no” statement did not correctly state the current laws in Idaho.
The new “yes” and “no” statements are as follows:
“A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability — defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures — and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy,” the revised “yes” vote statement reads.
“A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children by prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement,” the revised “no” vote statement reads.
Upon seeing the new wording of Proposition One, Idahoans United filed an objection, which was overruled 4-1. The dissent from Justice Colleen Zahn, said that the “yes” statement was compliant, but the “no” statement was not. Zahn wrote that the new language “introduces new terminology not found in the Idaho statutes at issue.” Zahn specifically referred to the term “preborn children” in her dissent.
Proposition One, also titled the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot. The ballot initiative received enough signatures and was filed on Nov. 20, 2024. Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Secretary of State Phil McGrane approved the initiative and allowed it to be on the ballot.
Initiatives start as petitions, and once they get enough signatures, they are submitted to the Idaho Attorney General. These ballot initiatives appear on the ballot with a “yes” or a “no” option for voting. A “yes” vote changes Idaho law, while a “no” vote keeps Idaho law the same. In their lawsuit, Idahoans United stated that all “no” votes within the past 20 years only described the no vote as making no change to Idaho’s law.