Missouri鈥檚 top election official has already been admonished by the courts and rejected by the voters after attempting to sabotage the state鈥檚 abortion-rights referendum in blatant violation of his official duties. Yet Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft is at it again, misleading voters about what the referendum says.
Now backers have filed suit over a false description of the referendum鈥檚 provisions that Ashcroft has posted on his official state website and that he plans to have displayed in polling places around Missouri on Nov. 5.
The courts should expedite this litigation and (once again) force Ashcroft to carry out his tax-funded duties in good faith instead of misusing his office as an ideological cudgel.
People are also reading…
Missouri鈥檚 2022 abortion ban outlaws the procedure from conception, in all cases except 鈥渕edical emergencies,鈥 even for rape and incest victims. Doctors who violate the ban can face 15 years in prison.
In Missouri, as across America, this kind of draconian cruelty simply doesn鈥檛 have widespread public support. That鈥檚 why activists were able to gather more than twice the required signatures to get a referendum on the statewide ballot. Amendment 3 would change the Missouri Constitution to restore reasonable abortion rights as they stood under Roe v. Wade.
Just getting it on the ballot entailed overcoming a truly outrageous sabotage campaign by Ashcroft.
Among Ashcroft鈥檚 official duties is to craft unbiased ballot language that will describe for voters what a given referendum would do. That duty isn鈥檛 merely an ethical ideal; it鈥檚 specified in state statutes.
The current referendum would restore abortion rights up to the point of fetal viability (about 24 weeks), which was the standard under Roe. It specifically allows government restrictions after that, while prioritizing the life and health of the woman.
Ashcroft last year ignored those facts and attempted to impose misleading ballot language that reads like a right-wing bumper sticker. His proposed ballot wording falsely claimed the referendum would 鈥渁llow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions 鈥 from conception to live birth.鈥 It also falsely claimed that it would allow anyone to perform an abortion without a medical license and without being subject to medical malpractice sanctions.
As Missouri courts concluded, none of this was true based on a reasonable reading of the measure. Which is why every court that heard the resulting litigation ruled against Ashcroft.
As Circuit Judge Jon Beetem last year, Ashcroft鈥檚 summary failed to 鈥渇airly describe the purposes or probable effect of the initiative.鈥 Ashcroft appealed. A state appeals court unanimously ruled against him, noting that his ballot wording was 鈥.鈥 The Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear his subsequent appeal.
Left with no choice, Ashcroft this month finally certified the ballot language that will go before Missouri voters. Written by the courts (since Ashcroft refused to do his job), the wording evenly lays out the provisions, including the possibility of government restrictions on abortion after fetal viability.
Ashcroft鈥檚 third-place finish in this month鈥檚 GOP gubernatorial primary has effectively ended his political career. But not soon enough, it turns out.
On the same day Ashcroft certified the ballot language that the courts forced upon him, he reignited his sabotage campaign with a stunt so brazen it should merit hauling his office before a judge.
In addition to the ballot wording for referendums, Ashcroft鈥檚 office publicly posts a shorter version of the ballot 鈥 a summary, in essence 鈥 called 鈥渇air ballot language.鈥
In this case, though, there鈥檚 nothing 鈥渇air鈥 about it. Ashcroft鈥檚 summary exhumes the lies that the courts kept off the ballot itself, while failing to accurately describe what the referendum actually does.
Don鈥檛 take our word for it. Compare the two versions for yourself.
This is the court-ordered language the voters will see on their ballots:
Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:
- establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;
- remove Missouri鈥檚 ban on abortion;
- allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
- require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and
- allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?
Here鈥檚 Ashcroft鈥檚 new summary, as posted on his less than two weeks ago:
A 鈥榶es鈥 vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.
To be clear: This. Is. False. As the courts have already ruled in the ballot-language case.
It鈥檚 bad enough this continuation of Ashcroft鈥檚 sabotage campaign has been sitting on his state website for two weeks, misleading any Missourian who logs on seeking unbiased information about the measure. Worse, that same false summary will be posted in polling places all over the state on Nov. 5, unless the courts again intervene.
They must intervene. And Ashcroft should have some explaining to do. While this may not meet the technical definition of contempt of court, it certainly is that in spirit.