Case Summary
The League of Women Voters of Missouri ("LWVMO") filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs who argued the summary statement and fair ballot language summary for a proposed constitutional amendment to repeal the 2024 abortion rights amendment was misleading in violation of state laws.
Missouri voters vote to protect reproductive freedom
In 2024, Missouri voters amended the state constitution to protect abortion rights. The amendment, listed as Amendment 3 on the 2024 ballot, stated reproductive freedom was a fundamental right, protected the right to abortion before fetal viability, and, to ensure the life or physical health of a pregnant person, allowed the government to regulate abortion after fetal viability, with certain limits.
Opponents of reproductive freedom begin repeal efforts
Soon after Amendment 3’s passage, opponents began efforts to effectively repeal it. For example, the legislature placed House Joint Resolution 73 ("HJR 73") on the ballot. HJR 73 would repeal Amendment 3 and replace it with a much more restrictive set of regulations, allowing abortion only in cases of medical emergency, birth defect, rape, or incest. Abortions performed in cases of rape or incest would only be allowed before 12 weeks of pregnancy. The legislature also included a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in HJR 73. The legislature issued a summary statement accompanying HJR 73, which reads as follows:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; ensure women’s safety during abortion; ensure parental consent for minors; allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest; require physicians to provide medically accurate information: and protect children from gender transition?
State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Greene County estimates it may experience an unknown increase in tax revenue. Other local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings
After the legislature placed HJR 73 on the ballot, the Missouri Secretary of State issued a fair ballot language statement, which stated as follows:
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to allow abortion in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest, with a twelve-week gestational limit for rape or incest; require physicians to provide medically accurate information; require informed and voluntary consent, including parental or judicial consent for minors; authorize laws to regulate abortion providers and facilities to ensure health and safety; prohibit public funding of abortions except in limited circumstances; guarantee access to care for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and medical emergencies; and protect children from gender transition by prohibiting certain medical procedures and medications for minors, with exceptions for specific medical conditions.
A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution to allow abortion in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest, or to protect children from gender transition. If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes
Fair language ballot statements are posted in polling places for voters to read before they vote on proposed constitutional amendments.
Litigation begins
On July 2, 2025, Dr. Anna Fitz-James filed a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state in the Cole County Circuit Court, asserting HJR 73 was unconstitutional and that the above descriptive statements were illegal on the grounds that:
- It contained more than one subject by combining abortion restrictions with bans on gender affirming care and prescribing procedures on challenging abortion laws, in violation of Article 12, Section 2(B) of the Missouri Constitution.
- The summary statement describing the amendment written by the legislature failed to meet legal standards in violation of Missouri Revised Statutes §116.155, which requires that it be a, “true and impartial statement of the purposes of the proposed measure in language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure.” Dr. Fitz-James argued that the summary statement failed to inform voters voting for HJR 73 meant they were repealing the abortion rights amendment they passed in 2024, and that it would be replaced with a 12-week abortion ban
- The fair ballot language statement describing HJR 73 created by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General for posting at polling places for voters was not complaint with Missouri Revised Statutes §116.025, which mandates the statement be “true and impartial”. Dr. Fitz-James argued the statement did not meet these standards because it failed to tell voters what voting yes or no meant.
On September 19, 2025, the state circuit court ruled that HJR 73 did not contain more than one subject but agreed that the summary statement and fair ballot language was unfair and insufficient. It subsequently approved revised versions submitted by the Secretary of State. On October 10, 2025, Dr. Fitz-James appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
LWVMO files amicus brief
On November 3, 2025, the League of Women Voters of Missouri (“LWVMO”) filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiff. LWVMO’s brief argued the circuit court had made several errors in its decision. First, LWVMO asserted the revised statements from the Secretary of State should not have been approved, as they were still misleading and left out vital information. Second, LWVMO argued HJR 73 violated the single-subject rule in the Missouri state constitution, as banning gender affirming care had nothing to do with the stated subject of HJR 73, reproductive health care.
Appeals court issues new summary statement
On December 4, 2025, the court of appeals partially upheld and partially reversed the circuit court’s decision. The court of appeals ruled that the circuit court did not err in ruling HJR 73 complied with the single subject rule. However, it reversed the circuit court’s approval of its revised statements and drafted new ones for presentation to the voters, as follows:
Revised Summary Statement
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability; allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies; allow legislation regulating abortion; ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions; prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?
Revised Fair Ballot Language Statement
A “yes” vote will repeal Article I, Section 36, of the Missouri Constitution approved by the voters in 2024 which provided reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability; continue to ensure women’s ability to access medical care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages; allow legislation to regulate abortion providers and facilities to ensure health and safety; require informed and voluntary consent for an abortion, including parental or judicial consent for minors; allow restriction of abortions to cases of medical emergency, rape and incest under twelve weeks gestation, and fetal anomalies; prohibit public funding of abortions except in limited circumstances; and prohibit gender transition procedures for minors including gender transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs, with exceptions for specific medical conditions.
A “no” vote will leave Article I, Section 36, of the Missouri Constitution approved by voters in 2024 in place; will not limit abortion to cases of medical emergency, rape and incest under twelve weeks gestation, and fetal anomalies, but leave access to abortion available through fetal viability; will not prohibit gender transition procedures for minors. If passed, this measure will not increase or decrease taxes
LWVMO was represented in this matter by Wolff Law, LLC, LMW Law, LLC, and Amy Rubin.
LWV Timeline
Missouri legislature passes HJR 73
The Missouri state legislature passes HJR 73 and places it on the ballot, seeking to repeal Amendment 3 and add a ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth to the state constitution.
Plaintiff files lawsuit
Dr. Anna Fitz-James files a lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court, seeking to block HJR 73 for violating the single subject rule in the state constitution. Dr. Fitz-James also asserts the summary statement and fair ballot language statement are misleading and do not meet requirements under state law.
Circuit court issues ruling
The circuit court partially rules in favor of Dr. Fitz-James, stating HJR 73 did not violate the single-subject rule, but ruling the summary statement and fair ballot language were insufficient and unfair. The court orders the Secretary of State to revise the language for both statements.
Plaintiff appeals to court of appeals
After the circuit court approved revised summary statements and fair ballot language statements, Dr. Fitz-James appeals to the state court of appeals, arguing the court had erred in ruling HJR 73 complied with the single subject rule and that the new statements were still misleading in violation of state law.
LWVMO files amicus brief
LWVMO files an amicus brief supporting Dr. Fitz-James, arguing that the revised statements from the Secretary of State were still misleading and left out vital information. LWVMO also asserts HJR 73 did violate the single-subject rule in the Missouri state constitution, as banning gender affirming care had nothing to do with the stated subject of HJR 73, reproductive health care.
Court of appeals issues ruling
The court of appeals partially reverses the circuit court’s order, affirming its ruling that HJR 73 was compliant with the single subject rule, but rewriting the summary statement and fair ballot language that were submitted by the Secretary of State.