Montana court upholds state abortion amendment amid legal challenges

A Montana court has once again backed abortion advocates, rebuffing a pro-life challenge to the state’s 2024 constitutional amendment that enshrines abortion "rights" into the Montana Constitution. 

Key Takeaways:

• A Montana district court judge has rejected challenges against Montana's 2024 pro-abortion state constitutional amendment.

• The petitioners believe that the amendment was "not properly presented to voters for approval."

• The judge rejected petitioners' arguments, claiming that "the rules for a constitutional initiative do not require the full printing of the text on the ballot itself. In analyzing the Montana Constitution" and must only be filed in full with the Secretary of State.

The Details:

Yellowstone County District Judge Thomas Pardy set aside challenges brought by state Representative Amy Regier and the Montana Life Defense Fund, who had repeatedly contested the process used to place Constitutional Initiative 128 (CI-128), the 2024 ballot initiative that enshrined the “right” to an abortion in the Montana Constitution, on the ballot. The pro-abortion measure passed with 345,070 votes in favor versus 252,300 against.

A press release from the ACLU Montana noted:

The Court’s decision affirmed that the overwhelming passage of CI-128 was constitutionally valid, finding that “there is no factual basis upon which Petitioner could recover based on the claim before the Court.” The Court’s dismissal rejects a challenge by anti-abortion groups that CI-128 was not properly presented to voters for approval.

"This decision was the first by a district court, and was an attempt to litigate the constitutional amendment voters approved in 2024, which allows abortion up to the point of fetal viability," the Daily Montanan reported.

The Montana Life Defense Fund insisted that the amendment was invalid because the full text of the initiative did not appear on the ballot, thus preventing voters from fully evaluating the ramifications of the pro-abortion measure.

Pardy rejected this argument, saying Montana law does not require the complete text of a constitutional initiative to be printed on the ballot. The Daily Montanan noted:

... a five-page ruling by Pardy said that the rules for a constitutional initiative do not require the full printing of the text on the ballot itself. In analyzing the Montana Constitution, Pardy said the full text is required to be submitted to the Secretary of State, but is not required to be printed in full on the ballot.

The judge reasoned that if the framers of the 1972 state constitution would have wanted the full text, they would have required it.

The Backstory:

Previously, the Montana Life Defense Fund had submitted two separate petitions to the Montana Supreme Court, contending that both supporters of the measure and state election officials failed to abide by constitutional requirements. Since the state’s highest court has jurisdiction over disputes entailing the amendment process, it usually deals with such cases.

In both instances, the Montana Supreme Court claimed that while the dispute hinged on an amendment already approved by voters, Regier and the Montana Life Defense Fund did not show why a district court could not properly handle the case, according to the Daily Montanan.

The justices also declared that, because the amendment had already taken effect, there was no upcoming election or urgent deadline mandating the Court's immediate intervention. 

The justices claimed that if the district court ruled against Regier and the Fund, the two groups could still appeal to the Supreme Court.

In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court decreed that the Montana Constitution’s general right to privacy also encapsulated individual medical decisions, including abortion. The passage of CI-128 included direct language to the Montana Constitution, indicating that Montanans have the “right” to  “make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.” 

Why It Matters:

This recent Montana ruling is a sober reminder to pro-lifers that even after the reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022, abortion supporters have persisted in trying to enshrine abortion “rights” into state law and constitutions.

Montana’s constitution has one of the stronger state-level abortion protections in the country.

Once abortion is cemented into state constitutions, pro-life lawmakers face major obstacles to advancing the pro-life cause even when they can influence parts of lawmaking. Ballot initiatives and constitutional campaigns, therefore, remain a key hotspot for pro-lifers and abortion activists in the post-Roe era.

Strikingly, Montana’s latest ruling reveals how deeply entrenched pro-abortion mindsets have become in some states, particularly in areas where voters have already voted in favor of pro-abortion constitutional amendments.

The Bottom Line:

In the near future at least, pro-life advocates will likely have to rely immensely on long-term public educational campaigns to change hearts and minds towards valuing the dignity of all human lives.