It's happened.
Missouri Republicans have hit a grand slam in terms of election interference by their efforts to block Missouri citizens from voting on a state constitutional amendment that would have re-instated abortion rights after the Republican controlled legislature and Governor enacted a strict abortion ban immediately after the Dobbs ruling of 2022.
Republican officials and partisans took all of the following measures to thwart efforts to place the initiative on the November 2024 ballot.
- Missouri's Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft attempted to provide a grossly misleading summary of the initiative that would appear on material shown by canvassers attempting to collect signatures. This language was thrown out by a judge in September 2023.
- Ashcroft later attempted to also provide a grossly misleading summary of the initiative required by a "plain language law" in Missouri that would appear next to sample ballots at polling stations to "explain" the law's intent which AGAIN grossly misled voters about the law's intent. This language was thrown out by a judge in September 5, 2024.
- Anti-abortion partisans immediately appealed that September 5 ruling, claiming the proposed amendment covered too many topics, a legal rationale previously argued which was rejected, September 6. The anti-abortion plaintiff resurrected prior legal challenge to the amendment, arguing it addressed too many topics. This motion led a judge to reject the amendment (while staying his rejection based on a State Supreme Court decision slated for September 10) because the judge claimed canvassers did not properly explain that the amendment would completely un-do Missouri's abortion ban.
- On September 9, before the state Supreme Court had a chance to rule on the bogus ruling from September 6, Ashcroft stepped in again and rejected his prior certification of the initiative, citing the 9/6 ruling as support, despite defending his prior certification IN COURT on September 6 prior to the judge's ruling.
In a nutshell, these fringe conservative judges, politicians and partisan groups are arguing the following two things must happen SIMULTANEOUSLY:
- A constitutional amendment initiative must explicitly identify EVERY change it would make to existing law and to existing processes and systems so would-be voters are properly informed...
- ...YET the amendment initiative language can only address one topic.
In a situation where the LEGISLATURE has enacted a sweeping bill that outlaws abortion and imposed penalties in related areas of reproductive care and rights of citizens to information about reproductive care, this interpretation prevents a single amendment from un-doing that law.
If the initiative simply identifies the prior bill to be reversed, the public hasn't been told EXPLICITLY all the things it will undo, the public is not properly informed so the public doesn't get to vote on the issue.
If the initiative explicitly identifies all of the impacts, which extend beyond the direct right to abortion but related protections for patient confidentiality, retaining proper regulation of reproductive care providers, etc. so all impacts are reflected in ONE bill so the public knows EXACTLY what it is voting on, then that violates the one -amendment / one-topic rule.
Sadly, this isn't just fringe politics as usual. Jay Ashcroft, the man driving much of the interference in this initiative's fate, had been running for Governor to replace term-limited Mike Parsons. That would have explained his interference in 2023 as a means of bolstering his bid for Governor. However, Ashcroft lost his bid for Governor by a significant margin in the August 2024 primary. Ashcroft's term as Secretary of State ends in 2024 as well so his choice to run for Governor means he will not be Secretary of State past 2024. His continued interference in this issue is thus not helping him in any immediate political campaign with the Republican base in Missouri.
So what explains Ashcroft's conduct?
Ashcroft may still be looking ahead to some future run for office and may be assuming this will bolster his credentials with the conservative fringe but frankly, despite his "Missouri-famous" last name, he isn't much of a brand in the state. He might just be this adamant about abortion. Or maybe he is greasing the skids to land himself a cushy job at a high paying conservative think tank. However, regardless of his personal beliefs about abortion or attempts to snag a soft landing in the private sector, his conduct in this matter amounts to a gross violation of his oath of office to "faithfully execute" the law.
What's the impact on Missouri?
Unless the Missouri Supreme Court agrees to still hear the appeal filed on September 6, overturns the lower court decision AND rejects Ashcroft's decertification, Missouri voters will NOT have the opportunity to vote on un-doing the draconian ban enacted after Dobbs. Because of the issues raised in this debacle and the timing of the various efforts, any effort to get the measure back on a ballot faces numerous decisions:
- How should the single issue be worded and possibly subdivided into individual amendments to satisfy bogus concerns about single-amendment / single-topic compliance?
- How can any revised amendment be reviewed to ensure it WILL pass muster per the bogus interpretation being enforced at some layers of the Missouri court system?
- If multiple initiatives are required, then for the desired "un-do" effect to be provided, ALL of the initiatives have to pass the signature collection test and ALL have to be passed by the voters, otherwise some critical protection might still wind up missing because the voters didn't understand how they all tied together.
If the Missouri Supreme Court does NOT hear the appeal on September 10 and make a ruling, abortion rights advocates won't know if the strict one-amendment / one-topic interpretation will again crop up nor be given any hint how much separation will be required. This adds uncertainty to allow similar interference in the future, further delaying the point at which citizens will have the choice of overruling their Legislature and Governor and re-instating abortion rights in the state. This measure was targeted for the November 2024 ballot in a Presidential election year to ensure the largest pool of voters had a chance to weigh in on this issue. Interfering with that is the ultimate intent here.
And that's really the essence of this saga. This strategy is being adopted all over the country by fringe conservatives trying to protect laws enacted with much lower thresholds of support by tampering with any available processes available to The People to raise the threshold required to un-do those laws. Democracy at its saddest.
WTH
