The Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the Republican attorney general to allow an initiative petition legalizing abortion in the state to move forward. The court ruled in favor of the lower court’s decision and stated that the attorney general must approve the cost estimate provided by the auditor. The attorney general had argued that the cost could be much higher than estimated.
Due to the attorney general’s refusal to approve the auditor’s cost estimate, the secretary of state has been unable to give the amendment the needed approval for supporters to gather voter signatures. This delay has resulted in the loss of nearly 100 days for the plaintiff to collect signatures.
The Supreme Court’s decision acknowledged that the plaintiff’s constitutional right to initiative petition was being obstructed and that the deadline for submitting signed petitions was approaching.
The ACLU of Missouri, which represented the plaintiff, praised the court’s decision but also criticized those who prioritize personal interests over the constitution. The court order allows the amendment to move forward in the process.
The attorney general’s office expressed disagreement with the court’s decision, emphasizing that Missourians deserve to know the cost of the amendment. Despite this disagreement, the attorney general’s office will respect the court’s order.
The proposed amendment seeks to enshrine the individual right to make decisions about abortion, childbirth, and birth control in the state constitution. It was introduced in response to the state’s near-total abortion ban.
The auditor’s estimated cost of the amendment was $51,000 annually in reduced local tax revenues, with opponents suggesting a potentially significant loss to state revenue. The attorney general, however, argued that the cost estimate was too low and could bias voters.
After the ruling, the auditor stated that he would vote against the amendment if it reaches the ballot. He emphasized the importance of providing a fair assessment of the amendment’s cost to the state and thanked the court for protecting the impartial information that voters are entitled to.
