'Bait and switch': Arizona anti-abortion group turns to court to block ballot measure
An Arizona group that opposes abortion filed a lawsuit Wednesday aiming to keep a constitutional amendment off the ballot in November, arguing it is confusing and a "bait and switch."
Arizona Right to Life also argues in a 21-page legal complaint that voters' signatures gathered by over 180 people to get the amendment on the ballot were not valid and should be set aside. The lawsuit does not include an estimate of how many total signatures are being challenged.
Arizona Right to Life spokesperson Jill Norgaard said in a statement that signature gatherers told voters "this petition is to 'support women' and 'does not include abortion after fetal viability.'"
"Untrue," Norgaard said. "If they told Arizonans that they were signing a petition that allows abortion up to birth, very few Arizonans would sign that. Arizonans are being lied to."
Arizona for Abortion Access, the political committee that is backing the ballot measure, called the lawsuit "desperate" in a statement and noted more Arizonans signed their petition to make the ballot than any other citizen initiative in state history.
"Despite these bogus attacks by anti-abortion extremists, we have long been prepared for just this type of unfounded attempt to shut down direct democracy in our state," the statement reads.
Arizona for Abortion Access estimated it collected over 823,000 signatures when it turned in the paperwork to make the ballot in early July. The group and others trying to amend the constitution via citizen initiatives needed to gather about 394,000 voter signatures to qualify for the ballot.
The abortion access advocates want voters to amend the Arizona Constitution to include a right to an abortion.
The Arizona Abortion Access Act would do so by prohibiting restrictions on abortion until fetal viability — around 23 or 24 weeks of pregnancy and when a treating healthcare provider determines there is a significant likelihood a fetus would survive outside the womb. After viability, the government could not restrict abortions that are necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.
Current law allows abortions through 15 weeks of pregnancy, and abortions later only in cases of medical emergency.
Arizona Right to Life's lawsuit argues the text of the amendment doesn't make clear that other abortion laws could be impacted by creating a constitutional right to an abortion. Arizona laws require parental consent if a minor seeks an abortion and prohibit use of state dollars to provide most abortions, among other provisions.
The lawsuit says the ballot measure is vague in defining the circumstances when abortions are allowed after viability, with exceptions that could allow abortions "until birth."
"Many voters may be willing to add their signature to a petition allowing abortion up to viability," the lawsuit says. "However, because the post-viability clause is so vague and poorly defined, many will not realize how broadly protections for late-term abortion are being expanded."
The lawsuit cites Arizona Supreme Court precedent that has been used to toss out prior ballot measures because the description causes a "significant danger of confusion or unfairness."
Such reasoning was cited by the state's top court to stop an education tax measure known as Invest in Ed from making the ballot in 2018. Two years later, the tax on high-income earners did appear on the ballot and was approved by voters — but later was deemed unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2021.
The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court makes six arguments that signature gatherers for Arizona for Abortion Access did not follow various requirements and thus their signatures should be thrown out. Those include failing to register with the secretary of state, misrepresenting the amendment to voters, and others.
Arizona Right to Life's lawsuit was filed by attorneys Jennifer Wright, a former state prosecutor, and Timothy La Sota, a lawyer known for representing GOP candidates and conservative causes.
Legal challenges to the wording of ballot measures and signatures are common in Arizona's citizen initiative process, and they can invalidate hundreds of thousands of signatures. With every word that a voter could read under the microscope of supporters and opponents, lawsuits have also been filed challenging ballot measure descriptions that appear in voter pamphlets.
Supporters of the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act, which would make it easy for independent voters to participate in primaries, filed a lawsuit over language that will appear in a pamphlet sent to voters before November.
Arizona for Abortion Access also filed a lawsuit over the pamphlet language, disputing the use of "unborn human being" instead of "fetus" in the description. A hearing on that issue was held Thursday afternoon and a ruling could come before the weekend.
Reach reporter Stacey Barchenger at [email protected] or 480-416-5669.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona Right to Life asks court to block abortion ballot measure