The Maricopa County Superior Court in Arizona has ruled against the use of specific wording in a ballot initiative pamphlet concerning a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion rights.
The court’s decision, issued on Friday, addressed the controversy over the language used to describe Arizona Proposition 139, a measure aimed at enshrining the right to abortion into the state constitution.
Proposition 139 seeks to protect abortion rights in Arizona, allowing the procedure up until the point of “fetal viability,” except in cases where there is a “compelling reason” to impose restrictions, and only in the “least restrictive way possible.”
The initiative also aims to prevent state interference with abortion access, aligning with constitutional provisions that permit fifteen percent of voters to propose new legislation.
Arizona law mandates that the Arizona Legislative Council, an administrative committee, provide an “impartial analysis” of each ballot proposal.
This analysis is then distributed to voters in a pamphlet by the Arizona Secretary of State. The controversy arose over the Council’s description of current state law, which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of gestation except in cases where the woman’s life is at risk or there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.
The Council’s pamphlet used the phrase “unborn human being” to describe a fetus, a term that Arizona for Abortion Access (AAA) argued was not impartial.
AAA sued state officials, claiming the term carried emotional and partisan connotations, and requested the court prohibit its use in the pamphlet. The defendants contended that the phrase accurately reflected existing state law.
However, the court sided with AAA, concluding that the term “unborn human being” is “packed with emotional and partisan meaning” and is not appropriate for an impartial analysis.
The judge emphasized that even phrases accurate on their own can become partial when placed in a specific context.
Following the ruling, Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, one of the defendants, expressed his intention to appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Toma criticized the ruling, stating:
“The ruling is just plain wrong and clearly partisan if the language of the actual law is not acceptable.”
He further suggested that the judge should run for the legislature if he wished to write laws.
In contrast, AAA Communications Director Dawn Penich expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision.
She posted on X (formerly Twitter):
“We are pleased to be one step closer to making sure Arizona voters get accurate and impartial information about our citizen-led effort to restore abortion access before they vote this fall.”
The case highlights the contentious nature of abortion rights and the ongoing debate over language and impartiality in legal and political discourse.
