Idaho officials sued over ‘misleading’ titles, budget info on abortion-rights initiative

A nonprofit that wants to let Idaho residents vote on abortion rights and other reproductive health care, such as birth control, has sued state officials over what it says are “misleading, inaccurate and prejudicial” proposals for the ballot initiative.

Idahoans United for Women and Families sued Attorney General Raúl Labrador, Secretary of State Phil McGrane and Idaho Division of Financial Management Administrator Lori Wolff on Thursday. The group, which formed last year to address concerns about women’s health care, said the officials proposed language that could confuse voters if the measure qualifies to be on ballots.

The group plans to have the measure up for a vote next year.

Idaho voters can change or create state law through ballot initiatives, which are also called ballot measures. Proposals are submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office, and the Attorney General’s Office writes “ballot titles” for the proposal. The titles, a long version and a shorter version, are what appear on ballots if enough signatures are gathered to support the proposal.

In the lawsuit, which was filed with the Idaho Supreme Court, Idahoans United said it submitted a proposal for a ballot measure to McGrane’s office in November. The group’s measure, which it called the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, would legalize abortion up to fetal viability or in medical emergencies, and guarantee a right to privacy about reproductive health decisions like contraception and fertility treatments, the lawsuit said.

Idahoans United said in a news release Friday that Labrador’s proposed titles omitted key elements of the ballot measure, and Wolff’s financial impact statement “relies on unsupported assumptions.”

None of the state officials named in the lawsuit immediately responded to the Idaho Statesman’s requests for comment.

Lawsuit claims ballot measure info was biased, confusing

Labrador’s office titled the proposal “Measure establishing a right to abortion up to fetus viability and to make reproductive decisions regarding one’s own body.” The lawsuit said that title failed to address two main components of the proposal: the right to privacy in reproductive health decisions and the establishment of a medical emergency exception for abortion.

The latter has been the subject of multiple lawsuits since Idaho banned abortion following the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Idaho law offers an exception when abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman,” which doctors say doesn’t protect patients whose health, but not life, is at risk. The ballot proposal would carve out a health exception.

Idahoans United also asked that the attorney general’s use of the term “fetus viability” be changed to “fetal viability” in the long and short titles. The lawsuit said the AG’s verbiage isn’t “common language” and could confuse voters.

The lawsuit also says the financial impact statement prepared by the Division of Financial Management is biased and full of confusing legal jargon.

The statement, which is supposed to help voters understand the costs of a proposed measure, says the ballot initiative could impact Department of Correction and Medicaid budgets, likely totaling less than $20,000 per year.

Idahoans United said details in the financial statement — including mention of the state’s $850 million annual Medicaid budget — are misleading and speculative. The group said its ballot initiative would have no financial impact on the state.

“This initiative ensures that Idahoans have the right to make personal medical decisions free from government interference, without creating an obligation for government funding or assistance, and we expect our titles and fiscal impact statement to reflect this,” said Idahoans United executive director Melanie Folwell in the group’s news release.

It’s the second time Labrador has been sued over ballot initiative titles during his tenure as attorney general. In 2023, Idahoans for Open Primaries won a lawsuit against the Republican in which the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that Labrador’s ballot titles did not comply with Idaho law.