Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft on Monday withdrew a ballot proposal that would have repealed the state’s abortion ban.
In a letter to Tori Schafer Ashcroft, one of the attorneys for the pro-Amendment 3 group, said: “After further review in light of the District Court’s ruling, I have concluded that the motion is deficient. Therefore, this office has denied the motion for the November 5, 2024 ballot.”
Through a spokesman, Ashcroft declined further comment, citing ongoing legal proceedings in the case.
The litigants filed briefs ahead of oral arguments Tuesday morning in the Missouri Supreme Court. The court will hold a hearing at 8:30 a.m. on Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh’s decision removing Amendment 3 from the ballot.
Limbaugh said the petition was inadequate because it did not specify which state laws it would repeal. However, it postponed its decision until Tuesday and the Supreme Court said the stay would remain in effect until it made a decision.
According to state law, Tuesday is the last day to remove anything from the Nov. 5 ballot.
Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, an organization that supports the amendment, said in a statement that the case “is before the Missouri Supreme Court and that court has jurisdiction, not Jay Ashcroft.”
“We are confident that the court will instruct the Secretary of State to keep Amendment 3 on the ballot so that Missourians can vote to repeal Missouri’s abortion ban on November 5,” Sweet said.
Later Monday afternoon, lawyers from Missourians for Constitutional Freedom submitted an application Ashcroft should be charged with contempt of court and “ordered to retract his alleged ‘opposition’ to the September 9, 2024, motion.”
“It is no coincidence that this also happens the day before a legal deadline for judicial changes to the ballot,” the motion states.
Deputy Attorney General Andrew Crane, who represents Ashcroft, wrote in a short on Monday that Amendment 3 “cannot evade the constitutional requirements that proponents of other amendments must and have met simply because the proposed amendment addresses a highly morally charged issue.”
Other pending or recently filed constitutional amendment initiatives, including those to legalize recreational marijuana and sports betting, lacked a disclaimer at the beginning of the petitions stating that the measure could invalidate certain state laws.
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public Radio
On Monday, numerous court filings were received from both supporters and opponents of Amendment 3.
Lawyers from the organization “Missourians for Constitutional Freedom” A short It explains that Limbaugh misinterpreted a law that requires petitions to contain the “full and correct text,” including “any sections of existing law or the Constitution that would be repealed by the measure.”
The brief also argues that Amendment 3 does not explicitly repeal laws, but could potentially provide a basis for judges to declare laws unconstitutional. It adds that even if Amendment 3 were required to list laws that could be repealed, nothing in the law “specifies that a measure must be excluded from the ballot because of such a weakness.”
Lawyers representing anti-abortion activists say the lack of a disclaimer The question of which laws could be repealed leaves voters unclear about the actual impact of the measure.
“(Amendment 3) deceived potential signers by failing to disclose any of the many, many provisions of the Missouri law it proposes to repeal, not even its headline: Missouri’s current abortion ban,” the brief says. “By hiding the profound implications (of the proposal) from signers, the drafters illegally misled Missouri voters.”
The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision immediately after the hearing this morning.
