Group behind Idaho abortion initiative sues officials, calls ballot language 'biased'

Nicole Blanchard, The Idaho Statesman on Aug 27, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOISE, Idaho — The nonprofit organization behind a ballot initiative that will let Idaho voters decide this fall whether to restore access to abortion has sued Republican state officials over what it says is “confusing, biased” language set to appear on ballots.

Idahoans United for Women and Families, which formed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that essentially overturned Roe v. Wade and resulted in Idaho’s strict abortion bans, filed the lawsuit with the Idaho Supreme Court early Thursday.

According to the lawsuit, the group was presented with language from the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office earlier this week to show what voters would see on their ballots when deciding to vote “yes” or “no” on Proposition One.

The proposition, also called the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, says it will establish “a right to make private reproductive health care decisions” on care including contraception, fertility treatment, miscarriage management and childbirth care. It would also make abortion legal up to fetal viability — usually considered to be about 24 weeks’ gestation — or in medical emergencies.

Idahoans United filed the lawsuit against Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and Secretary of State Phil McGrane, and said the officials’ offices worked together to create misleading language for the “no” option on voters’ ballots.

“We were shocked and have not seen anything like this in prior elections,” said Melanie Folwell, executive director of Idahoans United, in a news release.

In a statement, Labrador told the Idaho Statesman that the law clearly states both offices are responsible for writing clear and concise explanations of voter choices on ballot initiatives.

“Our duty is to fully inform the voters of Idaho,” said Labrador, whose office has faced a similar suit before. “We applied the same legal standard to every measure on the ballot. Idaho voters deserve a straightforward explanation of what their vote will do.”

Nonprofit asks Idaho court to strike language on abortion ballot measure

Initiatives typically appear on ballots with short summaries followed by “yes” and “no” voting bubbles that briefly explain what impact each vote would have.

Idahoans United said in its news release that in the past 20 years, most “no” options have been about 11 words long and been similar to the following message: “A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law.”

The “no” language for Proposition One reads: “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.”

In its news release, Idahoans United said the wording downplays the “severity of Idaho’s abortion ban” and makes no mention of the potential felony or civil penalties for healthcare providers if they break the law, as well as the lack of clear language protecting the health of pregnant women — which has been the subject of multiple lawsuits.

The group said the “yes” language also makes the decision murky for voters. It 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.”

According to the lawsuit, the combined statements total 76 words — about three times the average length of such statements for previous ballot proposals.

Idahoans United said the statements are not concise and could confuse voters. The group also said it was presented with the information as part of voter pamphlets — information election guides prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office — after the pamphlets had gone to the printer, and with final ballots for the Nov. 3 general election due “within days.”

The nonprofit asked the Idaho Supreme Court to strike all but the first 11 words from the “no” selection and order a compliant “yes” statement. It suggested one its lawyers proposed to the Attorney General and Secretary of State’s offices already: “A YES vote means Proposition One will become state law.”

The lawsuit said both agencies declined to change anything despite repeated requests from Idahoans United.

This is the second lawsuit the group has brought against the officials over similar claims. Last year, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that Labrador’s office failed to fully describe the initiative in a short description that will appear before voters, and also said the Division of Financial Management failed to establish a factual basis for the financial impact it said the proposal would have.

In the news release, Folwell said the court settled the issue of “clear, accurate and fair” ballot language in its previous decision.

“This long, confusing, biased Yes/No language, hustled in at the last minute, is incredibly disappointing,” she said.

_____