BOISE, Idaho (KIFI) — In a continuing debate over Proposition One, the language in Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane’s Prop One “Yes/No” statement on the November ballot faces a legal challenge.
Idahoans United for Women and Families asked the Idaho Supreme Court to hear their case against the state officials Wednesday, claiming the newly drafted ballot statements are “biased, misleading, and violate two decades of state precedent.”
The suit asks the court to strike down the “Yes” and “No” statements jointly written by Labrador and McGrane’s offices for the November general election and replace them with “lawful, clear, and concise language.”
What the Draft Ballot Language Says
The controversy stems from the language of the “Yes/No Statement” in the state’s voter pamphlets, which have already gone to print. The proposed 76-word statement currently reads:
- “A YES vote would create reproductive rights, including a right to abortion before a fetus’s ability to survive and after a fetus’s ability to survive in cases of a medical emergency, and provide liability protections for healthcare providers.”
- “A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law, which protects the life of the unborn while allowing abortion in reported cases of rape or incest, or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.”
Proposition 1 Campaign Arguments
Idahoans United argues the language selectively frames Idaho’s existing abortion laws without addressing the severity of Idaho’s ban or its lack of exceptions.
“The ‘No’ statement also purports to describe Idaho’s existing abortion laws…omitting that abortion is a felony under Idaho law, that criminal and civil penalties exist for doctors, and the lack of a health-of-the-mother exception. It also does not disclose that a federal court found part of Idaho’s law unconstitutional less than two weeks ago,” states the release.
The 38-word “No” statement written for Proposition One is also one of the longest in Idaho history.
“Typically, the ‘No’ portion was about 11 words long and read: ‘A No vote would make no change to current Idaho law,'” states Idahoans United.
This marks the second time the organization has sued the state over the Reproductive Freedom & Privacy Act (Proposition One). Last year, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled largely in the group’s favor, ordering the Attorney General to rewrite the initiative’s short title and fiscal impact statement after finding them misleading.
“This issue was settled by the Idaho Supreme Court last June,” said Folwell. “The direction from the Court was clear: Idaho voters deserve clear, accurate, and fair language on the ballot to inform their vote. This long, confusing, biased Yes/No language, hustled in at the last minute, is incredibly disappointing.”
Attorneys for Idahoans United sent a letter to Labrador and McGrane on Aug. 25 requesting the language be withdrawn, but state officials declined.
Idaho AG and Secretary of State Defend Ballot Language
Labrador and McGrane disputed the Idaho United’s characterization of the ballot language. In a statement to Local News 8, the Idaho Attorney General’s Office defended the draft:
“Idaho law is clear: the Attorney General and Secretary of State are responsible for writing ballot language that clearly and concisely explains the effect of a Yes or No vote. Our duty is to fully inform the voters of Idaho. We applied the same legal standard to every measure on the ballot. Idaho voters deserve a straightforward explanation of what their vote will do,” Labrador said.
McGrane said the Idaho Secretary of State office’s efforts to prepare absentee ballots by September 18, while “printing and distributing 850,000 voter pamphlets are now paused while the case is pending.”
“The yes and no statements in question were jointly prepared by our office and the Attorney General’s Office in an effort to help Idaho voters understand the effect of their vote,” McGrane said in a statement. “We are seeking an expedited resolution so our office and county clerks can meet these important election deadlines.”
Under federal and state law, the content of ballots must be finalized no later than September 11, 2026, in order for county clerks to have enough time to meet the deadline for mailing out absentee ballots.
