Serine
The ACLU of Missouri has filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, accusing him of certifying misleading and inaccurate ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment that would implement a near-total abortion ban in Missouri.
Filed Wednesday in Cole County court, the suit alleges that the summary statement and ballot language tied to House Joint Resolution 73 (HJR 73) misrepresent the scope and impact of the amendment.
Proposed Amendment Details
HJR 73, approved earlier in 2025 by the Missouri General Assembly, will place Amendment 3 on the November 2026 ballot. The amendment would prohibit abortions beyond 12 weeks of pregnancy and restrict abortions within the first 12 weeks to cases involving rape or incest.
According to Tori Schafer, ACLU of Missouri’s Director of Policy and Campaigns, this proposal “disregards the will of the people” and is a “copy-and-paste bill” driven by special interest groups aiming to eliminate constitutional protections for reproductive rights.
Naming Confusion and Legal Concerns
The ACLU contends that naming the proposed measure Amendment 3 is misleading, as it shares the same name as the 2024 amendment that previously legalized abortion in Missouri. The organization is asking the court to either:
- Declare the ballot summary language unfair and insufficient and order a rewrite.
- Or rule that the amendment violates the state constitution and should not appear on the ballot.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Anna Fitz-James, who petitioned the court regarding the issue.
Mixed Reactions and Political Response
The office of Secretary Hoskins declined to comment on the legal action, and the ACLU of Missouri also refrained from interviews. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which operates in Columbia, praised the ACLU’s legal move.
In a written statement, Emily Wales, CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said: “Voters deserve clear, honest ballot language — not political manipulation designed to overturn their will.”
Legislator Defends Resolution
State Rep. Ed Lewis (R-Moberly), who sponsored HJR 73, defended the resolution and its language. He acknowledged that the previous Amendment 3 shifted the law in the direction of broader abortion access and claimed HJR 73 was meant to restore balance by addressing exceptions Missourians want.
“Missourians support exceptions for cases like rape, incest, the life of the mother, or fetal anomalies,” said Lewis. He also supported the 50-word ballot summary as a reasonably accurate reflection, despite space limitations.
Call for Judicial Oversight
Wales emphasized that Missouri courts must ensure transparency, warning against deceptive tactics: “The courts have a duty to protect Missourians from deception and ensure Amendment 3 isn’t misrepresented on the ballot,” she stated.
As Missouri prepares for a potentially pivotal vote in 2026, the ACLU’s lawsuit underscores concerns that the state’s ballot language may mislead voters about the true nature of the proposed abortion restrictions.
The legal challenge may shape how voters interpret the next major amendment affecting reproductive rights in the state.