BY: ANNA SPOERRE
Missouri Independent
Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals agreed the ballot language set to go on the November 2026 ballot failed to sufficiently inform voters that a ‘yes’ vote would repeal abortion rights passed in 2024
A Missouri appeals court rewrote the language for a proposed abortion ban set to appear on the November 2026 ballot after the judges concluded Thursday the previous wording drafted by Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins was riddled with errors.
The judges found both the ballot language and the summary statement that will be posted at polling places “fail to sufficiently advise voters” that the proposed amendment would repeal and replace the reproductive rights amendment voters passed in November 2024 to legalize abortion.
The new ballot language certified by the Missouri Court of Appeals reads:
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;
- Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;
- Allow legislation regulating abortion;
- Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;
- Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?”
Western District Court of Appeals Presiding Judge W. Douglas Thomson and judges Thomas Chapman and Janet Sutton filed the opinion less than 24 hours after hearing arguments in their courtroom Wednesday afternoon.
Hoskins’ now-rejected ballot language, in-part, asked if voters wanted to: “Repeal Article I, section 36, approved in 2024; allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest.’”
Attorneys for Dr. Anna Fitz-James, who filed the lawsuit, picked this statement apart, scrutinizing the assumption that voters would know what “Article 1, section 3 of the constitution is, the exclusion of the 12-week gestation limit for survivors, as well as the misuse of a semi-colon, which could be interpreted to mean citizens would be newly gaining these abortion rights.
The appeals court agreed with them on all three counts.
The judges also re-wrote Hoskins’ initial ballot language that asked if voters wanted to: “Guarantee women’s medical care for emergencies, ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.”
The appeals court found that wording to be “misleading,” because while the proposed amendment would prevent the state from interfering with an individual’s ability to access such care, it “does not guarantee the care itself.”
Fitz-James also argued the proposed amendment violates a statute that prevents ballot measures from encompassing more than one subject. She argued that gender-affirming care is a different subject from reproductive health care.
The appeals judges agreed with the lower court’s assessment that the proposed amendment “passes constitutional muster” and does not violate the single subject rule.
“Because gender transition surgeries or hormone therapies may affect the ability to reproduce, gender transition surgeries and hormone therapies may be connected with, or incident to, reproductive health care,” the judges wrote.
Abortion rights groups have accused lawmakers of including the ban to win over more voters. Gender-affirming health care for minors is currently banned in Missouri, though a challenge to the law is before the state supreme court.
But they disagreed with how Hoskins worded this part of the language, which initially asked if voters wanted to “prohibit sex-change procedures for children.” The judges said this wording incorrectly attempted to use the words “gender” and “sex” interchangeably.
The court also re-wrote the ballot summary to reflect the new ballot language.
A new law passed this year allows the secretary of state three attempts to write fair ballot language. Hoskins has so far used two, but the appeals court ruled Thursday that he wouldn’t be given his third try at the wording.
The latest decision is expected to be appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The proposed constitutional amendment was drafted and approved by Missouri’s Republican supermajority in May. A lawsuit over the initial ballot language, which failed to state the amendment would ban abortion, was filed in July by Fitz-James. Fitz-James, who submitted the language for the reproductive rights initiative petition, said the latest amendment was intentionally deceptive.
While abortion up until the point of fetal viability is a constitutional right in Missouri because of the abortion rights amendment voters approved, only several dozen abortions have occurred as legal battles over abortion regulations that remain in state statute play out in the courts.