Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft decertified a ballot item Monday that would reverse the state鈥檚 ban on abortion.
Read the latest: Missouri Supreme Court orders abortion legalization back on the ballot
one of the attorneys for the pro-Amendment 3 group, Ashcroft said: 鈥淥n further review in light of the circuit court鈥檚 judgment, I have determined the petition is deficient. Therefore, this office has decertified the petition for the November 5th, 2024 ballot.鈥�
Through a spokesman, Ashcroft declined further comment, citing the continued litigation in the case.
Participants in the case filed briefs ahead of Tuesday morning鈥檚 oral arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court. The court will hold an 8:30 a.m. hearing on Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh鈥檚 ruling striking Amendment 3 from the ballot.
Limbaugh said the petition was insufficient because it didn鈥檛 specify which state laws it would repeal. But he stayed his ruling until Tuesday, and the Supreme Court said the stay is in place until it makes a decision.
Under state law, Tuesday is the last day for anything to be removed from the Nov. 5 ballot.
Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which is backing the amendment, said in a statement that the case 鈥渋s before the Missouri Supreme Court, and they have jurisdiction, not Jay Ashcroft.鈥�
鈥淲e are confident the court will order the Secretary of State to keep Amendment 3 on the ballot so that Missourians can vote to end Missouri鈥檚 abortion ban on November 5,鈥� Sweet said.
Later on Monday afternoon, attorneys for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom for Ashcroft to be held in contempt and 鈥渙rdering him to rescind his purported September 9, 2024 'rejection' of the Initiative Petition.鈥�
鈥淚t is no coincidence that this also comes on the day before a statutory deadline for judicial amendments to the ballot,鈥� the motion states.
Assistant Attorney General Andrew Crane, who is representing Ashcroft, on Monday that Amendment 3 鈥渃annot evade constitutional requirements that advocates of other amendments must and have satisfied simply because the proposed amendment concerns a highly charged moral topic.鈥�
Other pending and recent constitutional amendment initiative petitions, including measures legalizing recreational marijuana and sports betting, didn鈥檛 have disclaimers on the top of petitions saying that the measure could invalidate certain state statutes.
Monday brought about a flurry of court filings from both proponents and opponents of Amendment 3.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom attorneys stating that Limbaugh incorrectly interpreted a statute that says petitions must have the 鈥渇ull and correct text,鈥� including 鈥渁ll sections of existing law or of the constitution which would be repealed by the measure.鈥�
The brief also contends that Amendment 3 does not explicitly repeal statues, but rather could potentially provide a foundation for judges to rule laws unconstitutional. It added even if Amendment 3 needed to list statutes that could be repealed, nothing in the law 鈥渟pecifies that a measure must be kept from the ballot as a result of such infirmity.鈥�
Attorneys representing abortion rights opponents about which laws it could repeal keeps voters in the dark about the measure鈥檚 full impact.
鈥淸Amendment 3] defrauded potential signers by failing to disclose any of the many, many provisions of Missouri law it proposes to repeal, even its headliner: Missouri鈥檚 current ban on abortion,鈥� the brief states. 鈥淏y hiding its profound effects from signers, the drafters of [the proposal] illegally misled Missouri voters.鈥�
The Supreme Court is expected to rule quickly after the morning hearing.
