The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Republican Legislature’s description of an abortion rights ballot measure does not violate state law.
Arizona for Abortion Access collected more than enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot asking Arizona voters to add the right to access abortion services to the Arizona Constitution.
In July, Republican lawmakers voted along party lines to include the term “unborn human being” in a description of the measure that will go in an informational pamphlet for Arizona voters.
The campaign sued the Legislature, arguing the term is politically charged and violates a state law requiring the legislature to use impartial language.
A trial court judge agreed, ordering the Legislature to rewrite the description in a ruling issued on July 26.
“The term 'unborn human being' is packed with emotional and partisan meaning both for those who oppose abortion and for those who endorse a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion," wrote Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten.
Republican lawmakers appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which overruled Whitten’s order in a split decision.
“We conclude that the Analysis provides the information required by [state law] and ‘substantially complies’ with the statute’s impartiality requirement,” Justice John Lopez wrote in an order filed on Aug. 14.
House Speaker Ben Toma (R-Peoria) praised the Supreme Court’s decision.
“The ballot analysis prepared by the Legislative Council is intended to help voters understand current law,” Toma said in a statement. “Arizona’s 15-week law protects unborn children, while the abortion initiative essentially allows unrestricted abortions up until birth. It’s really that simple. The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling is correct.”
The Arizona Abortion Access campaign disagreed.
“The Arizona Supreme Court today reversed the trial court’s well-reasoned ruling and held that the phrase ‘unborn human being’ — a watchword for anti-abortion advocates with no basis in medicine or science — is somehow impartial and objective,” the campaign said in a statement. “This means that Arizona voters won’t get to learn about the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate way but will instead be subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation.”
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer and Justice James Beene disagreed with the court majority and would have affirmed the lower court’s ruling, according to the order.
Justice Clint Bolick did not participate in the case after recusing himself earlier this month.
