A Cole County judge ruled that Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft did not craft fair and impartial ballots summary statements for a pro-choice petition initiative that voters will decide on next year.
“The Court finds that certain phrases included in the Secretary’s summary statement are problematic in that they are either argumentative or do not fairly describe the purposes or probable effect of the initiative,” wrote Judge John E. Beetem in his Sept. 25 order.
Dr. Anna Fitz James sued Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft alleging the way he summarized the pro-choice ballot petition initiative made abortion services appear radical and risky.
Beetem’s order includes a revision for each of the six summary statements that were challenged.
“The new summaries go a long way toward fairly describing the right to make reproductive health care decisions without government interference,” said Anthony Rothert, Director of Integrated Advocacy at the ACLU of Missouri. “Missourians believe in limited government and should have the chance to vote for reproductive rights.”
Summary statements are limited to one hundred words. In its court-certified summaries, Beetem removed negative references to abortion services that included 'dangerous, unregulated and unrestricted abortion,' 'partial birth abortion,' 'unborn child,' 'from conception to live birth,' 'the right to life,' 'without requiring a medical license' and others.
"The purpose of the summary statement is not to provide every detail about an initiative,” Beetem ruled. “Rather it is intended to provide voters with enough information that they are made aware of the subject and purpose of the initiative and allow the voter to make an informed decision as to whether to investigate the initiative further.”
The court also found that the State Auditor’s estimated cost of $51,000 in the fiscal note summary is accurate but Beetem rejected arguments that passing the measure would result in the loss of federal Medicaid funding or other costs opponents argued would be incurred.
As previously reported in the St. Louis Record, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered Attorney General Andrew Bailey to approve the state auditor’s fiscal note summary.
The state’s highest court upheld Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem’s ruling that Bailey had no authority to challenge Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick and, moreover, has a duty to approve the fiscal note summary.
“Section 116.175.1 makes clear that the substantive responsibility for assessing the fiscal impact of a measure belongs solely to the Auditor, and only the “legal content and form” of that assessment are to be reviewed by the Attorney General,” wrote Justice Paul C. Wilson in Missouri Supreme Court opinion.