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

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less