Skip to content Skip to footer

Arizona Judge Tosses Right-Wing Group’s Challenge to Abortion Ballot Measure

The lawsuit made a dubious claim that the language of the ballot measure was too confusing for voters to understand.

Members of Arizona for Abortion Access, the ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the Arizona State Constitution, hold a press conference and protest at the Arizona House of Representatives on April 17, 2024, in Phoenix, Arizona.

An Arizona state judge has rejected challenges from an anti-abortion group to a constitutional initiative seeking to expand abortion rights in the state and set to appear on the November 2024 ballot.

The proposed amendment seeks to establish “a fundamental right to abortion” in Arizona, limiting the state’s “ability to interfere with that right before fetal viability” — typically understood to be 22-25 weeks of pregnancy, and a standard that existed for nearly 50 years under Roe v. Wade before the federal Supreme Court dismantled that precedent. Regulations on abortion can occur after that time period, but they cannot restrict the right to obtain the procedure if it’s sought “to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual.”

Arizona Right to Life, a far right anti-abortion group, challenged the proposal on several fronts. Initially, the organization had argued that signatures were collected in an improper way, stating without evidence that some signatures were faked, for example. However, the group dropped that challenge and instead focused on other dubious claims, including allegations that the wording of the amendment and an accompanying explanation of it was too confusing for voters.

“The Amendment purports to allow regulation of late-term abortions but then guts that proffer with a huge loophole for ‘good faith’ abortionist judgements about the malleable scope of ‘health,'” Arizona Right to Life said in its brief.

On Monday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian flatly rejected those claims, stating that the language of the proposed amendment wasn’t confusing to voters.

“The description accurately and fully communicated the initiative’s key provisions,” Julian wrote in her opinion. “This Court will not order its removal from the general statewide election ballot.”

Arizona Right to Life has yet to state whether they will appeal the order, though officials with Arizona for Abortion Access — the group that organized the petition drive — said they fully expected the case to continue into higher state courts.

The lawsuit from the anti-abortion group was “nothing more than false political talking points,” said Arizona for Abortion Access campaign spokesperson Dawn Penich. “If our opposition appeals, we are confident we will prevail just as we are confident we will win at the ballot box this November.”

Polling on the measure shows that it has the support of most Arizonans at this time. A CBS News survey back in May, for instance, found that 65 percent of voters backed enshrining abortion as a state constitutional right, with only 21 percent stating they were opposed to the idea.

The popularity of the proposal is also notable in the fact that Arizona for Abortion Access was able to obtain over 800,000 signatures in support of it appearing on the ballot — more than twice the number that was needed in order to have voters decide on it in November.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.