Idaho Supreme Court: State has 24 hours to rewrite 'unclear' abortion ballot info

Nicole Blanchard, Idaho Statesman on Sep 4, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOISE, Idaho — The Idaho Supreme Court has ordered state officials to rewrite “unclear” language concerning a reproductive healthcare ballot initiative that will appear in front of voters in November. The rewrite is scheduled just a day after the justices issued their expedited decision, as election deadlines approach.

The justices filed the unanimous decision Friday afternoon. The judgment, written by Justice Gregory Moeller, sided with Idahoans United for Women and Families, the nonprofit behind Proposition 1, or the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.

Idahoans United claimed in a lawsuit filed last week that Secretary of State Phil McGrane and Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s offices used “confusing, biased” language for the options voters would see on their ballots when deciding to vote “yes” or “no” on the proposition.

The proposition says it will establish “a right to make private reproductive health care decisions” on care including contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage management and childbirth care. It would also make abortion legal up to fetal viability — usually considered to be about 24 weeks’ gestation — or in medical emergencies.

Idahoans United said the ballot language downplayed Idaho’s restrictive abortion laws and left out key elements of the proposition. The nonprofit proposed options that simply tell voters a yes vote will make the proposition state law, while a no vote will keep Idaho’s current abortion laws the same.

In his decision, Moeller agreed with the group’s claims that Idaho officials’ ballot language was “unclear” about the effects of a voter’s choice and did not comply with Idaho law requiring the descriptions to be clear and concise.

Melanie Folwell, executive director of Idahoans United, told The Idaho Statesman the decision is a win for Idaho voters.

“The Idaho Supreme Court unanimously agreed that both the Yes and No statements for Prop One were unlawful,” she said. “Idaho voters deserve ballot language that tells them the truth, and I’m proud that we fought this battle.”

The justices set a deadline for new ballot language to be submitted by 5 p.m. Saturday — about 24 hours after they issued their decision. Moeller noted the short timeline and quick turnaround of the decision were due to impending election deadlines.

Labrador and McGrane’s offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Moeller’s decision didn’t direct the officials to comply with specific language, though he noted that “a simple formulation would suffice” and said if they instead choose to describe the effects of the proposed legislation, they must ensure they address all its facets.

Initiatives typically appear on ballots with short summaries followed by “yes” and “no” voting bubbles that briefly explain what effect each vote would have. Idahoans United said in its news release announcing the lawsuit that in the past 20 years, most “no” options have been about 11 words long and been similar to the following message: “A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law.”

The “no” language for Proposition One reads: “A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law, which protects the life of the unborn while allowing abortion in reported cases of rape or incest, or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.”

In its news release, Idahoans United said the wording downplays the “severity of Idaho’s abortion ban” and makes no mention of the potential felony or civil penalties for healthcare providers if they break the law, as well as the lack of clear language protecting the health of pregnant women — which has been the subject of multiple lawsuits.

The group said the “yes” language also makes the decision murky for voters. It reads, “A YES vote would create reproductive rights, including a right to abortion before a fetus’s ability to survive and after a fetus’s ability to survive in cases of a medical emergency, and provide liability protections for healthcare providers.”

This is the second lawsuit the group has brought against the officials over similar claims. Last year, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that Labrador’s office failed to fully describe the initiative in a short description that will appear before voters, and also said the Division of Financial Management failed to establish a factual basis for the financial impact it said the proposal would have.

_____