The Idaho Supreme Court has once again sided with the campaign to restore abortion rights in the state, saying the attorney general and secretary of state failed to write clear and concise ‘yes’ and ‘no’ statements that will appear on this fall’s ballot.
The unanimous opinion from Justice Gregory Moeller found the two state officials omitted significant facts of what Proposition 1 would do if it passed or would leave in Idaho if it failed.
“A statement is not ‘clear’ if it leaves voters uncertain about a principal legal consequence of their choice, and it does not describe ‘the effect’ of a vote if it materially misstates that consequence,” Moeller wrote.
He specifically pointed to the now invalidated ‘yes’ statement excluding two significant prongs of the initiative.
First, it failed to mention that Prop 1 would establish an independent right to reproductive freedom and privacy beyond abortion.
It also did not fully explain the extent of liability protections the initiative would extend to healthcare workers who can currently face civil, criminal and professional punishment under Idaho law, he said.
Moeller wrote that Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Secretary of State Phil McGrane also fell short of clearly explaining the consequences of a ‘no’ vote.
He said the two properly stated the current law would remain unchanged.
But in explaining the three narrow exemptions under which a legal abortion could be performed, Moeller said officials made them seem broader than they are in practicality.
The original ‘no’ statement said abortions are allowed “when necessary to protect the life of the mother,” which is not how it is described in Idaho law.
“The choice of phraseology matters: ‘protect the life’ reasonably communicates a broader circumstance than ‘prevent the death [of the pregnant woman],’” Moeller wrote.
Exceptions in cases of rape or incest outlined in the ‘no’ statement also fail to explain abortions must be performed in the first trimester and “significant” documentation requirements from law enforcement.
Labrador and McGrane could’ve avoided this conflict by simply stating state law would remain unchanged, Moeller wrote.
“...however, by presenting these conditional carve-outs from a criminal prohibition as circumstances in which the law affirmatively ‘allow[s]’ abortion, the statement inaccurately enlarges the exceptions and understates the prohibition they qualify,” he wrote.
State officials must rewrite these statements and submit them to the Idaho Supreme Court by 5 p.m. Saturday.
Copyright 2026 Boise State Public Radio
