Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Abortion is directly on the ballot in at least five states this year

abortion and voting

A woman arranges a voting sign near the Main Street Branch Library vote center in Huntington Beach, California in November 2020.

Apu Gomes/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

Voters will directly weigh in on the future of abortion in at least five states, with a record number of measures on midterm ballots this year that would either limit or expand abortion protections.

Voters in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana and Vermont will be asked whether they want to change their state constitutions or laws. Michigan is expected to join that list, following a citizen-led initiative that wrapped public signature collections this week.

The unfolding dynamics show the complicated terrain for abortion regulation at different levels of state government and the judicial system. The ballot measures carry additional significance following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned federal abortion rights.


“The states have become even more of a battleground for reproductive freedom,” said Jessica Arons, senior policy counsel with the ACLU, which supports some of the measures that would expand abortion protections. “That is why we are also seeing both supporters of reproductive freedom and opponents turn to ballot measures as another tool to advance their position.”

Five or more abortion-related ballot measures in one election year surpasses a record of four first set in 1986, according to Ballotpedia, which tracks the issue. In some, voters will weigh in on legislative efforts to add something to the state constitution.

The ballot measures expected before voters this year:

  • California: Within days of the court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the Democratic-controlled legislature finalized legislation by the necessary two-thirds majority that would add abortion and contraception protections to the state constitution.
  • Kansas: The Republican-controlled legislature approved a bill last year that would explicitly declare that abortion is not guaranteed under the state constitution and that the state won’t pay for it. The measure is in response to a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that affirmed abortion is protected under the state constitution’s bill of rights.
  • Kentucky: In a similar move, Republicans who control the statehouse approved a proposal last year that states: “To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”
  • Michigan: On Monday, organizers submitted nearly 754,000 signatures for a ballot measure to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution, nearly double the amount required. The signatures will now be reviewed to check if enough are valid for the proposal to move forward.
  • Montana: Republican lawmakers approved legislation last year that would codify into state law legal rights for “infants born alive after an abortion.” For now, the right to an abortion is recognized under the Montana constitution’s right to privacy clause.
  • Vermont: Democratic lawmakers approved a bill in February that states an individual’s “right to personal reproductive autonomy” shall not be “denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” The right to an abortion is already codified in state law.

Abortion-related ballot measures, whether as a proposal by a state legislature or a citizen-led initiative, have historically been led by anti-abortion lawmakers and groups. That may begin to shift: The ballot measures in California and Vermont, and possibly Michigan, represent the first time that voters will consider constitutional protections to abortion access.

“Let this be an important sign to all that the Supreme Court will *never* have the last word on our reproductive freedom. As long as we can organize and mobilize, there will be legally protected abortion access in America,” tweeted Reproductive Freedom for All, the group behind the Michigan ballot measure. The group did not respond to requests for comment.

The Michigan Supreme Court is considering whether a 1931 abortion ban that was previously dormant should go into effect following the Roe ruling. The Republican-controlled legislature has indicated support for the nearly century-old law while the state’s Democratic governor opposes it.

A coalition of anti-abortion groups under the name Citizens to Support MI Women and Children have launched a campaign against the ballot measure, arguing the text is too broad and will have unintended consequences on health regulations.

“We plan on launching a full campaign to protect our constitution from this can of worms and to protect Michigan’s women and children from the dangerous consequences of this amendment,” said Christen Pollo, a spokesperson for the group. “So they’ll be hearing a lot more from us if this does end up on the ballot.”

Citizens have also led efforts on abortion-related ballot measures in Arizona and Colorado. Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom announced earlier this month that it failed to collect enough signatures to add the question to the November ballot.

Tori Fewell, campaign chair for the group, noted that the group formed only after news reports of the Roe leak, giving organizers just 60 days to collect 356,000 signatures. The group, which ended up with 175,000 signatures and 3,000 volunteers, plans to try again for the 2024 election cycle.

“It was a very successful effort, and it would have been successful, I believe, if we had had more time,” she said. “I think going forward, we will have the luxury of more time and we will make it a priority to collaborate with our community partners in reproductive health care.”

More from The 19th

In Colorado, anti-abortion organizers face an August 8 deadline to collect enough signatures in support of a ballot measure that wold place an abortion ban in the state constitution. The text defines the “murder of a child” as “intentionally causing the death of a living human being at any time prior to, during, or after birth while the child is under the age of 18 years by using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means, and causing death.”

Similar efforts to add abortion restrictions to the state consitutions have failed repeatedly in recent years, including in 2020.

According to Ballotpedia, there have been at least 47 abortion-related ballot measures since 1970. All but seven were supported by organizations that oppose abortions. Just 11 of the anti-abortion measures were approved.

In the past decade, voters approved multiple ballot measures that explicitly declared that abortion access is not protected in a state constitution. Voters approved such measures in Tennessee (2014), Alabama (2018), West Virginia (2018) and Louisiana (2020). An effort in Florida failed in 2012. During this time, voters in at least four states rejected amendments that attempted to define a constitutional right to life before birth.

Arons with the ACLU said the successful ballot measures that limited abortion protections have so far tied up legal options to challenge abortion restrictons in Alabama, where abortion is now banned, and Tennessee, where a ban after six weeks of pregnancy is in effect.

“When they put language like that in the state constitution, it means that politicians can pass these bans with no legal recourse,” she said.

In Kansas, Republican lawmakers passed the suggested constitutional amendment with one vote more than the two-thirds majority necessary for such a change. A similar effort failed in 2020 when some Republicans voted against the amendment.

If a majority of voters approve the measure, it is expected to open the door for Kansas Republican lawmakers, who control the legislature, to approve abortion restrictions that can withstand legal challenges.

Elisabeth Smith is the director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which supports ballot measures that expand abortion access. She said many of the measures that propose restricting abortion protections in state constitutitons carry different weight now that federal abortion protections have been overturned.

“We are obviously in a totally new world,” she said. “So those restrictive ballot initiatives, which in many states were seen as more of a political statement than an actual page to the law that had effects, now we know that such constitutional limits will affect abortion rights and access in the state.”

Value Them Both, a coalition of anti-abortion groups, is leading efforts to get the amendment passed in Kansas. The coalition, which did not respond to a request for comment, has focused its messaging on a 2019 Kansas Supreme Court ruling that determined abortion access is protected under the state constitution.

“A recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling removed the legal foundation for all existing laws that permit basic regulations on abortion,” according to the group’s site. “Value Them Both simply allows for these existing laws to be protected.”

Ashley All, a spokesperson for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, a group that opposes the amendment, noted that Republican lawmakers placed the ballot measure in a primary election when fewer voters turn out. She said the group has been focused until now on getting people to register to vote ahead of a key deadline this week. That will shift to get-out-the-vote efforts now that early voting for the Kansas primary began Wednesday.

“I’m cautiously optimistic and hopeful that people will show up,” All said. “I mean, that’s the key.”


Read More

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less