The measure would change Montana state law in numerous ways, Mead argued, including rules regarding fetal viability and medical regulations; the measure as it was written “creates an express right to abortion but denies voters the ability to express their views on the nuance of the right,” he argued.
In their ruling, the justices disagreed with Mead’s assessment, arguing that the ballot proposal “effects a single change to the Montana Constitution on a single subject,” namely the right to abortion.
“If [the measure] is placed on the ballot, voters may ultimately agree or disagree with the proposed change that [it] offers,” the justices wrote, “but they will be able to understand what they are being asked to vote upon.”
The court ordered that Knudsen “prepare a ballot statement consistent with the applicable statutory requirements” and that his office “forward the statement to the Montana secretary of state within five days.”
In his dissent, Justice Jim Rice argued that the attorney general “properly determined that the initiative, in its totality, is legally insufficient.”
He wrote that the measure makes “two or more changes to the constitution that are substantive in nature” and that it is “virtually impossible … for a voter to fully comprehend the effects of its multiple provisions.”
Credit: Source link
