Kansas No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment (August 2022)
| Kansas No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date August 2, 2022 | |
| Topic Abortion | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The Kansas No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment was on the ballot in Kansas as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on August 2, 2022. The ballot measure was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported amending the Kansas Constitution to:
|
A "no" vote opposed amending the Kansas Constitution, thereby maintaining the legal precedent established in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt (2019) that the Kansas Bill of Rights provides a right to abortion. |
Additional information on abortion-related ballot measures
In 2022, there were six ballot measures addressing abortion — the most on record for a single year. Measures were approved in California, Michigan, and Vermont. Measures were defeated in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana.
- You can find a list of 2022's certified and proposed measures here: 2022 abortion-related ballot measures.
- Information on abortion-related ballot measures since 1970 is available here: History of abortion ballot measures.
Election results
|
Kansas Amendment |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 378,466 | 41.03% | ||
|
|
543,855 | 58.97% | ||
Overview
What would the amendment have changed about abortion rights in Kansas?
- See also: Text of measure
The measure would have amended the Kansas Constitution to provide that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion and that the state legislature has the authority to pass laws regarding abortion, "including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother."
The amendment was a response to the Kansas Supreme Court ruling in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt (2019), where the court held that the Kansas Bill of Rights afforded a right to abortion. During the legislative debate on the amendment, Rep. Tory Arnberger (R-112) said, "Kansas has over 20 (laws regulating abortion) and we could lose all of them due to this ruling." By adopting the amendment to the Kansas Bill of Rights, the amendment would overturn the ruling in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt.[1][2]
Proponents referred to the measure as the Value Them Both Amendment.[3]
Who supported and opposed the amendment?
- See also: Support and Opposition
Value Them Both led the campaign in support of the amendment. The campaign reported over $6 million in contributions as of July 18, 2022. The campaign was endorsed by U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall (R), former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R), the Family Policy Alliance of Kansas, and the Kansas Catholic Conference. Sen. Marshall said, "To put it simply, the Kansas Supreme Court paved the way for unlimited abortions. … Our 'yes' votes on Aug. 2 will push back against the extreme radical abortion agenda. Without its passage, the people of Kansas have no voice, no say, and no way to keep any common-sense limits on the abortion industry."[4][5]
Kansans for Constitutional Freedom led the campaign in opposition to the amendment. The campaign reported over $7.4 million in contributions. The campaign was endorsed by Gov. Laura Kelly (D), U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. Gov. Kelly (D) said,"[A]nybody who’s been alive in Kansas in the last six months knows that we have an amendment on the primary ballot that would essentially overturn the (state) Supreme Court ruling and say that women’s reproductive rights are not protected under the constitution. If people in the state of Kansas vote no on that amendment, then the status quo will remain. And women’s reproductive rights will remain constitutional here in the state of Kansas."[6]
How did the campaigns react to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization?
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which held that "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."[7] Ballotpedia tracked abortion-related ballot measure campaigns' responses to the ruling.
After the ruling, Value Them Both, the support campaign, released the following statement, "Today’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson emphasizes the importance of our democracy, restoring the power to the states to decide how and if they are going to place limits on the abortion industry. The U.S. Supreme Court restored the people’s ability to come to individual consensus on abortion limits — but not in Kansas. As it stands today, unelected judges in Kansas are the ones who will decide the fate of abortion limits. The Value Them Both Amendment is a reasonable approach and will ensure Kansas does not remain a permanent destination for the most extreme and painful abortion procedures. At this historically important time, the question before Kansans on August 2nd is clear: an unregulated abortion industry with no limits at all or the reasonable limits protected by the Value Them Both Amendment."[8]
Kansans for Constitutional Freedom responded to the ruling saying, "The Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade. On August 2, Kansas will be the first state in the nation to vote on reproductive freedom following this decision. We must keep fighting for the people in Kansas who are counting on us to defeat the constitutional amendment. Don't leave the future of abortion rights in Kansas to chance."[9]
How many other states had adopted similar amendments?
As of August 2022, four states had constitutional amendments declaring that their constitutions do not secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion. The first state to pass a constitutional amendment was Tennessee in 2014. In 2018, Alabama and West Virginia passed constitutional amendments. In November 2020, Louisiana voters approved a similar amendment. The amendment in Tennessee was in response to the Tennessee Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist (2000), which held that the state constitution provided a right to procreational autonomy. The amendment in West Virginia invalidated the state Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia Women’s Health Center v. Panepinto (1993), which held that the state had to fund abortion via Medicaid.[10][11][12]
As of August 2022, at least nine states, including Kansas, provided a state constitutional right to abortion based on court rulings.[13]
Reactions
The following is a list of reactions from supporters, opponents, and other commentators regarding the defeat of the constitutional amendment:
- Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, the committee registered in opposition to the amendment, said, "This is truly a historic day for Kansas — and for America. We won this historic battle to protect women’s constitutional rights — and we BLOCKED the dangerous anti-abortion amendment. Freedom has prevailed. The constitutional rights of Kansas women have been protected."[14]
- Value Them Both Coalition, who supported the amendment, said in a statement: "Over the last six months, Kansans endured an onslaught of misinformation from radical left organizations that spent millions of out-of-state dollars to spread lies about the Value Them Both Amendment. Sadly, the mainstream media propelled the left's false narrative, contributing to the confusion that misled Kansans about the amendment."[15]
- President Joe Biden (D) released a statement saying, "Voters in Kansas turned out in record numbers to reject extreme efforts to amend the state constitution to take away a woman’s right to choose and open the door for a state-wide ban. This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions."[16]
- Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said, "As the first state to vote on abortion rights following the fall of Roe v. Wade, Kansas is a model for a path to restoring reproductive rights across the country through direct democracy. We know that Kansas will not be our last fight, or our last victory."[17]
- Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kansas City, who was the largest contributor to the Value Them Both committee, said, "Unfortunately, we were not able to overcome the millions spent by the abortion industry to mislead Kansans about the amendment, nor the overwhelming bias of the secular press whose failure to report clearly on the true nature of the amendment served to advance the cause of the abortion industry. The Church and the pro-life community will continue its tangible and compassionate service to women facing unplanned and difficult pregnancies and to women and men needing healing after being hurt by an abortion."[18]
- Ed Whalen, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, tweeted, "One possible lesson from the Kansas shellacking: Voters facing what they see as a choice between two imperfect options on abortion policy--one too restrictive, one too permissive--will go with the one that is too permissive. Pro-lifers need to meet the voters where they are."[19]
- Maggie Astor and Nate Cohn of The New York Times wrote, "The rejection of the amendment has as much to do with lukewarm support in the reddest counties as it does with strong opposition in the bluest ones. ... From the bluest counties to the reddest ones, abortion rights performed better than Mr. Biden, and opposition to abortion performed worse than Mr. Trump."[20]
- Greg Vonnahme, chair of political science at the University of Missouri Kansas City, said, "Everybody was kind of interested in what was going to happen in Kansas because it was the first time that voters anywhere had a chance to vote on the issue of abortion. The results — both in terms of the outcome, the margin and what it did to voter turnout, it was a shocking result I think for people both inside Kansas and outside Kansas."[21]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for the amendment was as follows:[3]
| “ |
Shall the following be adopted? § 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother. [ ] Yes [ ] No[22] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for the amendment was as follows:[3]
| “ | The Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to
abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother. A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to regulate abortion. A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.[22] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Bill of Rights, Kansas Constitution
The measure would have added a Section 22 to the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:[3]
|
§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.[22] |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 11, and the FRE is -46. The word count for the ballot title is 95.
The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 19, and the FRE is 28. The word count for the ballot summary is 158.
Support
Value Them Both led the campaign in support of the amendment.[23]
Supporters
Value Them Both published a full list of endorsements on its campaign website that can be found here.
Officials
- U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall (R)
- State Sen. Molly Baumgardner (R)
- State Sen. Renee Erickson (R)
- State Sen. Ty Masterson (R)
- State Sen. Kellie Warren (R)
Former Officials
- Former Lieutenant Governor of Kansas Jeff Colyer (R)
- Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee (R)
- Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R)
Organizations
- Democrats for Life of America
- Family Policy Alliance of Kansas
- Kansans for Life
- Kansas Catholic Conference
Individuals
- Joseph Naumann - Kansas City Archbishop
Arguments
Campaign advertisements
The following videos were released by Value Them Both:[24]
|
|
|
Opposition
Kansans for Constitutional Freedom led the campaign in opposition to the amendment.[25]
Opponents
Officials
- U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D)
- U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids (D)
- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
- Gov. Laura Kelly (D)
- State Sen. Dinah Sykes (D)
- State Rep. Christina Haswood (D)
- State Rep. Lindsay Vaughn (D)
- Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas
Former Officials
- State Rep. Joy Koesten (D)
- State Rep. Nancy Lusk (D)
Organizations
- ACLU of Kansas
- Kansas Abortion Fund
- Mainstream Coalition
- National Association for Pregnant Women
- National Women’s Law Center
- Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes
- Sixteen Thirty Fund
- Trust Women
- URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity
Arguments
Campaign advertisements
The following videos were released by Kansans for Constitutional Freedom:[26]
|
|
|
Campaign finance
Value Them Both PAC was registered in support of the amendment. The committee reported over $8 million in contributions. Kansans for Constitutional Freedom was registered in opposition to the amendment. The committee reported over $11.4 million in contributions.[27]
In Kansas, a person or organization that accepts cash or in-kind contributions to promote or oppose a constitutional amendment must report contributions and expenditures. Through July 18, 2022, individuals and organizations not listed as committees below received over $2.4 million in cash and in-kind contributions and spent over $2.1 million.[27][28]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $7,891,029.68 | $116,175.66 | $8,007,205.34 | $7,278,754.45 | $7,394,930.11 |
| Oppose | $10,991,664.78 | $479,245.06 | $11,470,909.84 | $7,278,754.45 | $7,757,999.51 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.[27]
| Committees in support of Amendment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Value Them Both PAC | $7,891,029.68 | $116,175.66 | $8,007,205.34 | $7,278,754.45 | $7,394,930.11 |
| Total | $7,891,029.68 | $116,175.66 | $8,007,205.34 | $7,278,754.45 | $7,394,930.11 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.[27]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archdiocese of Kansas City | $3,180,000.00 | $0.00 | $3,180,000.00 |
| Kansans for Life 735 SW Jackson St. Topeka, KS 66603 | $1,150,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,150,000.00 |
| Catholic Diocese of Wichita | $751,130.00 | $0.00 | $751,130.00 |
| Kansas Catholic Conference | $275,000.00 | $0.00 | $275,000.00 |
| St. Michael the Archangel | $100,100.00 | $0.00 | $100,100.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot measure.[27]
| Committees in opposition to Amendment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Kansans for Constitutional Freedom | $10,991,664.78 | $479,245.06 | $11,470,909.84 | $7,278,754.45 | $7,757,999.51 |
| Total | $10,991,664.78 | $479,245.06 | $11,470,909.84 | $7,278,754.45 | $7,757,999.51 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[27]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixteen Thirty Fund | $1,500,000.00 | $85,000.00 | $1,585,000.00 |
| Planned Parenthood Action Fund | $1,150,000.00 | $11,915.91 | $1,161,915.91 |
| Stacy Schusterman | $1,100,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,100,000.00 |
| Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes | $484,325.00 | $190,985.52 | $675,310.52 |
| North Fund | $535,000.00 | $0.00 | $535,000.00 |
Miscellaneous individuals and committees
Below is a spreadsheet that has aggregated the contributions and expenditures made by miscellaneous individuals and committees in support of or opposition to the amendment through August 17, 2022. The position on the amendment of the individuals and committees is not required in campaign finance filings, so it is not listed below. The entities are listed alphabetically.[27]
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
- See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements
Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative.
Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Support
Ballotpedia did not identify media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure.
Opposition
Polls
- See also: 2022 ballot measure polls
- Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
| Kansas No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment (August 2022) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co/efficient | 7/17/22 - 7/18/22 | 1,557 LV | ± 2.78% | 47% | 43% | 10% |
| Question: "How do you plan to vote on the 'Value Them Both' constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot August 2nd?" | ||||||
| Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters. | ||||||
Background
Abortion regulations in Kansas
At the time of the election, Kansas had the following abortion regulations:[29]
- Requires a licensed physician to perform an abortion;
- Prohibits abortions after 22 weeks, except in cases of life or health endangerment;
- Prohibits partial-birth abortions and abortions based on gender selection;
- Limits private insurance coverage of abortions, except for cases of life endangerment, unless enrollees purchase additional coverage specific for abortions;
- Prohibits public funding for abortions, except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest;
- Requires patients to undergo an ultrasound before an abortion;
- Requires a 24-hour waiting period after state-directed counseling prior to receiving an abortion; and
- Requires parental consent for minors to receive an abortion.
Kansas Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights
In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt that Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights "affords protection of the right of personal autonomy, which includes the ability to control one's own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life— decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy." Section 1 was part of the original Kansas Constitution of 1861, reading, "All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Court also argued that laws that limit this right are subject to strict scrutiny, where the government must show it has a compelling interest in the object of the law and that the law is narrowly tailored to such ends. The case concerned Senate Bill 95 (SB 95), which prohibited the abortion method of dilation and extraction except to preserve the life of the mother.[1]
Justice Caleb Stegall dissented. He said, "Today we issue the most significant and far-reaching decision this court has ever made. The majority’s decision is so consequential because it fundamentally alters the structure of our government to magnify the power of the state ... In the process, the majority abandons the original public meaning of Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and paints the interest in unborn life championed by millions of Kansans as rooted in an ugly prejudice."[1]
Following the ruling, Senate President Susan Wagle (R-30) said a ballot measure to amend the state constitution in response to the ruling was possible. Sen. Wagle stated, "I think the consequences of that ruling are still being determined. We really need some time to figure out how we’ll address it and I think the voters of Kansas will want to have a say in an election year."[30]
On April 7, 2021, Shawnee County District Judge Teresa Watson ruled that a Kansas law that banned dismemberment abortion, which is also known as dilation and evacuation abortion, was unconstitutional under the 2019 ruling. Judge Watson said, "Under the Kansas Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, and requisite application of the strict scrutiny standard to the uncontroverted facts as found by this Court, the Act is unconstitutional and unenforceable."[31]
On July 7, 2021, the Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R) said he would appeal Watson's ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court.[32]
Previous attempt to place the amendment on the ballot
The same amendment was introduced during the 2020 legislative session as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1613 (SCR 1613). In Kansas, a two-thirds vote of all members in each chamber of the Kansas State Legislature during one legislative session is required to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot. This amounts to 27 votes in the House and 84 votes in the Senate.
On January 29, 2020, the state Senate passed SCR 1613 with a vote of 28 to 12. The vote was largely along party lines with one Republican, Senator John Skubal, joined the Democratic minority. The measure was introduced in the House on January 30, 2020. On February 7, the House vote failed to meet the two-thirds requirement to pass. The vote tally was 80-43. The vote was largely along party lines with four Republicans, Representatives Don Hineman, Bill Pannbacker, Tom Phillips, and Jan Kessinger, joining the Democratic minority.[33]
Two of the Republican dissenting votes in 2020 lost in primaries, and the other three Republicans decided not to seek re-election. The 2022 amendment received no opposing votes from Republicans.
The status of abortion rights across the states
As of June 2022, at least nine states provided a state constitutional right to abortion based on court rulings.[13] Ballotpedia has identified six ballot measures to amend state constitutions to declare that nothing in the state constitution provides a right to abortion. In Tennessee (2014), Alabama (2018), West Virginia (2018), and Louisiana (2020), these constitutional amendments were passed. In Massachusetts (1986) and Florida (2012), these constitutional amendments were defeated.
The following map illustrates the states where courts have ruled that a right to abortion exists under the state constitution and states with constitutional amendments stating that no right to abortion exists under the state constitution:
Rulings for state constitutional rights
At least nine states provide a right to abortion under their state constitutions based on court rulings. None of these states provide an explicit constitutional right to abortion; rather, state courts have ruled that provisions related to privacy, liberty, and equality provide a right to abortion. The following is a list of states where courts have ruled that state constitutions provide a right to abortion:[13]
- Alaska: In Valley Hospital Association v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice (1997), the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 3 (1972), which declared that people have a right to privacy, provided a right to abortion.[34] Attorney General Kevin Clarkson (R), appointed in 2018, said, "Basically, Alaska provides more protection for abortion rights than the federal Constitution. So if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, in Alaska, nothing would change. ... What could change things in Alaska to move it towards a more protective-of-life perspective would be an amendment to the Alaska Constitution."[35]
- California: In People v. Belous (1969), the California Supreme Court ruled that women have "[constitutional] rights to life and to choose whether to bear children." The court's ruling stated that "the fundamental right of the woman to choose whether to bear children follows from the Supreme Court's and this court's repeated acknowledgment of a 'right of privacy' or 'liberty' in matters related to marriage, family, and sex."[36] Voters approved Proposition 11 in 1972. The proposition established a constitutional right to privacy. The state Supreme Court cited Proposition 11 in Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981), which stated that "the protection afforded the woman's right of procreative choice as an aspect of the right of privacy under the explicit provisions of our Constitution."[37] In 2002, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which added language to state statute declaring that women have a "fundamental right to choose to bear a child or to choose and to obtain an abortion."[38]
- Florida: The Florida Supreme Court decided the case In re T.W., a Minor in 1989, holding that Amendment 2, passed in 1980, included a right to abortion before viability. The state Supreme Court's ruling said that Amendment 2, which established a state constitutional right to privacy, "is clearly implicated in a woman's decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy."[39] In 2004, the Florida State Legislature referred Amendment 1, which required parental notification for a minor to receive an abortion, to the ballot.[40] Amendment 1 exempted the notification from the constitutional right to privacy. Voters approved Amendment 1. In 2011, the state legislature referred Amendment 6 to the ballot for November 6, 2012. Amendment 6 contained a provision that stated, "This constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution."[41] Voters rejected Amendment 6.
- Illinois: In Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd. v. Flores (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the state constitution's due process clause guarantees a right to abortion. The majority wrote, "[W]e find no state grounds for deviating from the United States Supreme Court's interpretation that the federal due process clause protects a woman's right to an abortion. Therefore, at this time, we interpret our state due process clause to provide protections, with respect to abortion, equivalent to those provided by the federal due process clause."[42]
- Massachusetts: In Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance (1981), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that "the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights affords a greater degree of protection to a woman's right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy by abortion than does the Federal Constitution."[43] The Massachusetts General Court referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot in 1986, which stated, "Nothing in this Constitution shall prevent the General Court from regulating or prohibiting abortion unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, nor shall anything in this Constitution require public or private funding of abortion, or the provision of services or facilities therefor, beyond that required by the United States Constitution."[44]
- Minnesota: The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Women of Minnesota v. Gomez (1995) that "under our interpretation of the Minnesota Constitution's guaranteed right to privacy, the difficult decision whether to obtain a therapeutic abortion will not be made by the government, but will be left to the woman and her doctor." The state Supreme Court cited Sections 2, 7, and 10 of Article I of the Minnesota Constitution to determine that women had a constitutional right to abortion.[45]
- Montana: In Armstrong v. State (1999), the Montana Supreme Court held that Section 10 of Article II of the Montana Constitution provided women with a right to procreative autonomy, including an abortion before fetal viability. Section 10 read, "The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest." The provision was included as part of the 1972 Montana Constitution.[46]
- New Jersey: In 2000, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a state constitutional right in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer. The ruling stated that Section 1 of Article I of the New Jersey Constitution "incorporates within its terms the right of privacy and its concomitant rights, including a woman's right to make certain fundamental choices."[47]
Amendments declaring no state constitutional rights
As of January 2022, four states had constitutional amendments declaring that their constitutions do not secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion. The first state to pass a constitutional amendment was Tennessee in 2014. In 2018, Alabama and West Virginia passed constitutional amendments. In 2020, Louisiana voters approved Amendment 1. Arkansas has a constitutional amendment, passed in 1988, that says, "The policy of Arkansas is to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution."
- Tennessee Amendment 1 (2014): Amendment 1 received 52.6 percent of the vote, making Tennessee the first state with an amendment proclaiming that the state constitution does not secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion. Amendment 1 was proposed as a response to the Tennessee Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist (2000), which held that the state constitution provided a right to procreational autonomy. Sen. Mae Beavers (R-17), who was a legislative sponsor of Amendment 1, said, "[The amendment] is meant to neutralize the 2000 [state] Supreme Court decision."[10]
- Alabama Amendment 2 (2018): Amendment 2 received 59.0 percent of the vote. Amendment 2 declared that the state constitution does not secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion. The constitutional amendment also said the state's public policy was to "recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life." In the Alabama State Legislature, Amendment 2 received a unanimous vote from the Republicans. Three Democrats voted in favor of the amendment, and 31 opposed it.[48]
- West Virginia Amendment 1 (2018): Amendment 1 passed with 51.7 percent of the vote. Amendment 1 declared that the state constitution does not secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion. According to the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services, Amendment 1 invalidated the state Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia Women’s Health Center v. Panepinto (1993), which held that the state had to fund abortion via Medicaid.[11] Legislative Republicans voted to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot. In the House, three Democrats voted in favor of it, and nine voted against it. In the Senate, 10 Democrats voted in favor of it, and 25 voted against it.[49]
- Louisiana Amendment 1 (2020): Amendment 1 passed with 62.1 percent of the vote. Amendment 1 added language to the Louisiana Constitution stating that "nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion."[50]
Ruling for state constitutional right overturned
In 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court held that women have a state constitutional right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds. Chief Justice Mark Cady wrote, "Autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free. ... We therefore hold, under the Iowa Constitution, that implicit in the concept of ordered liberty is the ability to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy."[51] During the 2019 legislative session, several joint resolutions were introduced to amend the Iowa Constitution to state that nothing in the constitution secured or protected a right to abortion or abortion funding. However, none of the resolutions were passed.[52]
On June 17, 2022, the state Supreme Court overturned its 2018 decision arguing that the former ruling establishing a right to abortion "insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake." The ruling concerned a 2020 law authorizing a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. Since the 2018 ruling, Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) has appointed four of the seven justices.[53]
U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
On June 24, 2022, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States found there is no constitutional right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Mississippi's abortion law at issue in the case. Roe v. Wade found that state laws criminalizing abortion prior to fetal viability violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but rejected the trimester framework established in the case. The high court affirmed that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability.
In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The newly-enacted law prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.[54]
History of abortion on the ballot
- See also: History of abortion ballot measures
Since the 1970s, abortion-related policies have been a topic for statewide ballot measures across the U.S.
The most recent vote on an abortion-related ballot measure was Ohio Issue 1, which voters approved. Issue 1 provided a state constitutional right to "make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions," including decisions about abortion, contraception, and other reproductive matters.[55]
In 2022, there were six ballot measures addressing abortion — the most on record for a single year. Measures were approved in California, Michigan, and Vermont. Measures were defeated in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana.
From 1970 to November 2023, there were 54 abortion-related ballot measures, and 43 (80%) of these had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-life. Voters approved 11 (26%) and rejected 32 (74%) of these 43 ballot measures. The other 11 abortion-related ballot measures had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights. Voters approved eight (73%) and rejected three (27%).
Before Roe v. Wade in 1973, three abortion-related measures were on the ballot in Michigan, North Dakota, and Washington, and each was designed to allow abortion in its respective state.
- See also: 2022 abortion-related ballot measures
The following table provides a list of abortion-related measures that were on the ballot in 2022:
| State | Date | Measure | Description | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas | Aug. 2 | Amendment | • Amend the Kansas Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding of abortions • Declare that the state Legislature has to power to pass laws regarding abortion |
|
| California | Nov. 8 | Proposition 1 | • Amend the California Constitution to provide that the state cannot "deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions," including decisions to have an abortion or to choose or refuse contraceptives |  |
| Kentucky | Nov. 8 | Amendment 2 | • Amend the Kentucky Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding of abortions | |
| Michigan | Nov. 8 | Proposal 3 | • Amend the Michigan Constitution to provide a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom, defined to include abortion, contraception, and other matters related to pregnancy | |
| Montana | Nov. 8 | LR-131 | • Provide in state law that infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons • Require medical care to be provided to infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, attempted abortion, or other method |
|
| Vermont | Nov. 8 | Amendment | • Amend the Vermont Constitution to provide a state constitutional right to personal reproductive autonomy | |
Turnout at Kansas primary elections
Ahead of August 2, election officials in several counties said turnout was expected to be higher compared to previous midterm primaries in recent years due to the constitutional amendment.
Fred Sherman, election commissioner of Johnson County, said, "Clearly the constitutional amendment question is driving a lot of voters to the polls this election cycle, so we are anticipating an unprecedented or record-breaking voter participation rate for our August primary."[56] In Sedgwick County, election commissioner Angela Caudillo said, “Typically, elections like this run about 20-30% turnout. We’re expecting potentially 50% turn out.”[57] KCTV 5 reported that officials in Wyandotte County were expecting 40%-45% turnout.[58] On July 29, the office of Secretary of State Scott Schwab (R) projected that turnout would be around 636,032 or 36% of registered voters. Schwab said, "... abortion is a compelling issue, and there’s strong opinions on both sides. That’s always going to be an issue that some people go and vote for."[59]
From 2010 to 2020, the average non-presidential primary turnout was 25.6%, with a range of 20.2% in 2014 to 34.2% in 2020. The highest turnout at a midterm primary election during this period was 27.1% in 2018.[60]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Kansas Constitution
In Kansas, a two-thirds vote of all members in each chamber of the Kansas State Legislature during one legislative session is required to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
The Kansas House of Representatives introduced the constitutional amendment as House Concurrent Resolution 5003 (HCR 5003) on January 12, 2021.[3]
On January 22, 2021, the state House passed HCR 5003 with a vote of 86 to 38 with one absent. All Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, and all but one Democrat that was absent voted against it. The one Independent in the House voted against the amendment as well. The measure was introduced in the state Senate on January 21, 2021. The state Senate passed the amendment on January 28, 2021, in a vote of 28-11 with one absent. All 11 Democrats voted against the amendment. One Republican was absent, and the remaining 28 Republicans approved the amendment.[61]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Kansas
Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Kansas.
| How to cast a vote in Kansas | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll timesIn Kansas, most polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Central Time, as Kansas mandates in its state laws that the polls must be open a minimum of 12 hours. Counties may open the polls earlier and close them later. If the polls close while a voter is in line, he or she will still be permitted to vote.[62] Registration requirements
To vote in Kansas, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Kansas. In order to register, an individual must be least 18 years old before the next election. Voters must register at least 21 days prior to Election Day. Registration can be done by completing and returning an application, either in person or by mail. Registration may also be completed online.[63] On June 18, 2018, a federal judge struck down a Kansas law requiring citizens to present proof of citizenship when registering to vote. A federal appeals court subsequently affirmed that decision. For more information, see below. Automatic registrationKansas does not practice automatic voter registration. Online registration
Kansas has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registrationKansas does not allow same-day voter registration. Residency requirementsTo register to vote in Kansas, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenshipA provision of Kansas’ SAFE Act went into effect on January 1, 2013, requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship with their voter registration applications. On June 18, 2018, Judge Julie Robinson, of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, struck down the proof of citizenship provision and ordered Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) to stop enforcing the rule. On June 20, 2018, Kobach’s office advised county clerks to comply with Robinson’s order. Kobach appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on March 18, 2019. On April 29, 2020, a Tenth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's ruling.[64][65][66][67] Verifying your registrationThe site Voter View, run by the Kansas Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirementsKansas requires voters to present photo identification while voting.[68] Voters can present the following forms of identification:
A photo ID does not need to have an expiration date, but, if it does have an expiration date, it must not have expired at the time of voting. If the voter is over the age of 65, he or she can use an expired ID.[68] The following voters are exempt from providing photo ID:[68]
Voters who do not have a photo ID can obtain one for free through the Division of Vehicles, Kansas Department of Revenue. The voter must provide proof of identity and proof of residence. The voter must also sign an affidavit. Voters can access the Certification Requesting Fee Waiver for Nondriver Identification Card form at all driver's license offices, county election offices, and on the secretary of state's website. If a voter does not have the proper documents to obtain a nondriver ID card, he or she can obtain a Kansas birth certificate from the Kansas Office of Vital Statistics for free. Voters can also apply for a free State Voter Identification Document. Voters should contact the election division of the secretary of state's office at election@sos.ks.gov or (800) 262-VOTE to apply.[68] | |||||
See also
External links
Support |
Opposition |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Kansas Supreme Court, Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, April 26, 2019
- ↑ KMUW, "Kansas Constitutional Amendment Saying There’s No Right To Abortion Is Headed To Voters," January 28, 2021
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Kansas Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 5003," accessed January 22, 2021
- ↑ Kansans for Life, "Value Them Both Amendment Introduced for 2021 Legislative Session," January 12, 2021
- ↑ CJ Online, "Twenty-five years delivering babies informs decision to support Kansas constitutional amendment," July 8, 2022
- ↑ US News, "Kansas Debates Whether Abortion Measure Would Stifle Economy," accessed February 2, 2021
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization," June 24, 2022
- ↑ Facebook, "Value Them Both on June 24, 2022," June 24, 2022
- ↑ Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, "Donate to keep abortion safe and legal in Kansas!" accessed June 24, 2022
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Commercial Apparel, "Tennessee Senate advances abortion amendment," April 18, 2011
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 West Virginia Metro News, "West Virginia’s rapid political shift on abortion," August 29, 2015
- ↑ West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Bureau for Medical Services, "Revised Public Notice Regarding West Virginia Constitutional Amendment 1," accessed November 13, 2018
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 The Guttmacher Institute, "Ensuring Access to Abortion at the State Level: Selected Examples and Lessons," January 9, 2019
- ↑ Facebook, "Kansans for Constitutional Freedom," August 2, 2022
- ↑ Facebook, "Value Them Both," August 2, 2022
- ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "Statement by President Joe Biden on Defeat of Kansas Ballot Measure Threatening Women’s Right to Abortion," August 2, 2022
- ↑ CNN, "'Kansas will not be our last fight': Abortion rights victory gives Democrats new hope for midterms," August 4, 2022
- ↑ Archdiocese of Kansas City, "Value Them Both Defeat," August 3, 2022
- ↑ Twitter, "Ed Whalen," August 3, 2022
- ↑ New York Times, "Here’s how abortion rights supporters won in conservative Kansas." August 3, 2022
- ↑ KSHB, "Experts believe Amendment 2 vote will impact November elections across nation," August 3, 2022
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Value Them Both, "Home," accessed May 6, 2022
- ↑ YouTube, "Why Does Kansas Need the Value Them Both Amendment," accessed June 13, 2022
- ↑ Kansans for Freedom, "Home," accessed May 6, 2022
- ↑ YouTube, "Kansans for Constitutional Freedom," accessed June 27, 2022
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 Kansas Secretary of State, "Receipts and Expenditures Report Filed by a Person Promoting or Opposing a 2022 Kansas Constitutional Ballot Question," accessed February 2, 2021
- ↑ Kansas Secretary of State, "Constitutional Ballot Question," accessed July 22, 2022
- ↑ Guttmacher Institute, "State Facts About Abortion: Kansas," accessed June 28, 2022
- ↑ The Wichita Eagle, "Abortion opponents say they’ll wait until 2020 to seek to change Kansas constitution," May 3, 2019
- ↑ Christian Post, "Judge strikes down Kansas ban on dismemberment abortions," April 8, 2021
- ↑ Haypost, "Kansas AG to appeal ruling blocking ban on abortion procedure," July 8, 2021
- ↑ Kansas Legislature, "SCR 1613 Status," accessed January 30, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Supreme Court, Valley Hospital Association v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, November 21, 1997
- ↑ Alaska Public Media, "What happens if Roe v. Wade goes? In Alaska, ‘nothing’," September 10, 2018
- ↑ California Supreme Court, "People v. Belous, September 5, 1969
- ↑ California Supreme Court, "Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers," March 20, 1981
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Reproductive Privacy Act," September 5, 2002
- ↑ Florida Supreme Court, In re T.W., a Minor, October 5, 1989
- ↑ Florida State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1," accessed June 25, 2019
- ↑ Florida State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1179," accessed June 25, 2019
- ↑ Case Text, Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd. v. Flores, July 11, 2013
- ↑ Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, "Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance," February 18, 1981
- ↑ Massachusetts General Court, "House Bill 3310," accessed June 25, 2019
- ↑ Minnesota Supreme Court, "Women of Minnesota v. Gomez," December 15, 1995
- ↑ Montana Supreme Court, "Armstrong v. State," October 26, 1999
- ↑ New Jersey Supreme Court, "Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer," August 15, 2000
- ↑ Alabama State Legislature, "House Bill 98," accessed March 16, 2017
- ↑ West Virginia Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 12," accessed February 9, 2018
- ↑ Louisiana State Legislature, "HB 425," accessed April 24, 2019
- ↑ Iowa Supreme Court, "Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds," September 18, 2018
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "Gov. Kim Reynolds supports anti-abortion language in the Iowa Constitution," February 5, 2019
- ↑ CNN, "Iowa Supreme Court rules state constitution does not protect right to abortion," June 17, 2022
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court to weigh in on Mississippi abortion ban intended to challenge Roe v. Wade," May 17, 2021
- ↑ Ohio Attorney General, "The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety," accessed February 22, 2023
- ↑ KSHB 41, "Elections leaders expect higher than average turnout for August primary," July 26, 2022
- ↑ KSN, "Sedgwick County election officials prepare for large primary turnout," June 28, 2022
- ↑ KCTV 5, "Kansas primary vote could be record-breaking for turnout," July 11, 2022
- ↑ Fox 4, "Spike in Kansas Primary turnout tied to abortion amendment, officials say," July 30, 2022
- ↑ Kansas Secretary of State, "Election Statistics," accessed July 29, 2022
- ↑ Kansas Legislature, "HCR 5003 Status," accessed January 22, 2021
- ↑ State of Kansas Secretary of State, “Frequently Asked Questions” accessed March 24, 2023
- ↑ Kansas Office of the Secretary of State, "Kansas Voter Registration Instructions," accessed March 24, 2023
- ↑ United States District Court for the District of Kansas, "Fish v. Kobach and Bednasek v. Kobach: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law," June 18, 2018
- ↑ The Topeka Capital-Journal, "Kobach's office tells counties to stop asking for proof of citizenship," June 20, 2018
- ↑ AP News, "Kansas hopes to resurrect proof-of-citizenship voting law," March 18, 2019
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, "Fish v. Schwab: Opinion and Order," April 29, 2020
- ↑ 68.0 68.1 68.2 68.3 Kansas Secretary of State, "Elections - FAQ," accessed March 24, 2023
 |
State of Kansas Topeka (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
