BOISE, ID – The Idaho Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and the Idaho Division of Financial Management must revise the short ballot title and the fiscal impact statement for an initiative that would restore abortion and other reproductive health care access statewide.
Idahoans United for Women and Families announced more than a year ago that it would pursue a ballot initiative to establish rights to access abortion, contraception and fertility treatments, among other reproductive health care needs, under state law. Idaho does not allow citizens to pass constitutional amendments, and instead must propose legislation to be passed by a simple majority of voters via ballot initiative.
The Idaho Attorney General’s Office is responsible for drafting short and long ballot titles that summarize what the legislation would do if passed. Idaho law states that the language must describe the proposal accurately and use common language without phrasing that is likely to prejudice voters.
Idahoans United for Women and Families sued state officials over ballot titles, fiscal impact statement
Idahoans United sued state officials in January because the ballot titles did not accurately capture the intent of the initiative, the group said, and the fiscal impact statement included information about the Medicaid budget and cost impacts to the state prisoner population. The group said that was unnecessary and prejudicial information.
Justice Colleen Zahn authored the opinion and wrote that the evidence in the court record did not support those conclusions, and it therefore violated Idaho’s law for the Division of Financial Management to prepare an “unbiased, good faith statement” of the fiscal impact of the proposed law.
Zahn noted that none of the employees with the financial management agency appeared to have spoken with the Idaho Department of Correction about whether it paid for any abortion-related care for prisoners. There was also no evidence to show there would be an increase in Medicaid expenditures if the initiative passed, the justices determined, since federal and state law does not permit Medicaid funds to be used for abortion care anyway except in cases where the procedure was done to save the life of the mother.
“Without knowing how many of the previously paid claims were for abortion-related complications, it is unclear whether the claims data provides a reasonable basis for DFM’s estimated fiscal impact on the Medicaid budget,” Zahn wrote.
The justices determined the long ballot title substantially complied with the law, but the short ballot title left out two of four key elements they identified: that abortions would be permitted after fetal viability in cases of health emergencies, and that health care providers would be protected from liability for performing abortions.
The justices did not agree with the initiative group that “fetus viability” was any different from the medical term of “fetal viability,” however.
The Idaho Attorney General’s office could not be reached for comment.
“Today’s ruling is a significant victory for fairness and transparency in Idaho’s election process,” said Melanie Folwell, Idahoans United’s lead organizer and spokesperson. “The court’s decision to direct AG Labrador and the State of Idaho to make the ballot titles and fiscal impact statement clear, concise, and fair is a win for all Idahoans who value a government that respects the will of the people, not just the power of politicians and bureaucrats.”
The court declined to grant attorney fees to Idahoans United because there were “mixed results” in the action.
The Idaho Division of Financial Management must provide a new fiscal impact statement by 4 p.m. Monday, June 23, according to the court order, and Labrador’s office must submit a new compliant short ballot title by the same time.
This story first appeared on Idaho Capital Sun.
