IDAHOANS UNITED FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES v. PHIL McGRANE, in His Official Capacity as SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; And RAUL LABRADOR, in His Official Capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO - Idaho Supreme Court - LAWS.com

IDAHOANS UNITED FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES v.

cases.laws.com · September 6, 2026

# IDAHOANS UNITED FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES v. PHIL McGRANE, in His Official Capacity as SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; And RAUL LABRADOR, in His Official Capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Idaho Supreme Court • September 6, 2026

Court Idaho Supreme Court Date Filed September 6, 2026 Docket 54406 Status Published

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 54406-2026 Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Certiorari, and Prohibition. Boise, September 2026 Term ----------------------------------------------- IDAHOANS UNITED FOR WOMEN AND Opinion filed: September 6, 2026 FAMILIES, Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk Petitioner, SUBSTITUTE OPINION, THE v. OPINION DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2026, IS PHIL McGRANE, in his official capacity as WITHDRAWN SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO; and RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, Respondents. Original proceeding in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking writs of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition. Petitioner’s request for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus is granted. Holland & Hart LLP, Boise, for Petitioner. Jennifer M. Aiko argued. Office of Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent Phil McGrane. Yvonne Dunbar argued. Office of Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent Raúl R. Labrador. James E. M. Craig argued. ______________________ MOELLER, Justice. This original action concerns the ballot statements that will appear on the November 3, 2026, general election ballot describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote on Proposition One, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act (“Proposition One”). Idahoans United for Women and Families (“Idahoans United”) filed its petition as an original action in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking writs of mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition against Secretary of State Phil McGrane and Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (collectively, “Respondents”). Idahoans United 1 challenges the ballot statements Respondents jointly prepared pursuant to Idaho Code section 34- 1810(1)(b) describing the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote on Proposition One (“Yes/No Effect Statements”). Idahoans United asks this Court to prohibit use of the challenged statements and to order Respondents either to prepare new statements that comply with Idaho law or to adopt Idahoans United’s proposed statements. The parties filed competing motions to expedite this matter, supported by various declarations. After considering the motions, the Court agreed to hear this matter on an expedited basis. For the reasons explained below, we grant Idahoans United’s requests for writs of prohibition and mandamus because the Yes/No Effect Statements fail to clearly and concisely convey the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote on Proposition One, as required by Idaho Code section 34-1810(1)(b). Because a writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition provide complete relief, we deny Idahoans United’s duplicative request for a writ of certiorari. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This is the second original action before this Court concerning ballot materials for the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act (the “Initiative”), a citizens’ initiative authorized by Article III, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution and title 34, chapter 18 of the Idaho Code. In the first case, we described the Initiative and the proceedings leading to circulation of the initiative petition at length. See Idahoans United for Women & Families v. Labrador (Idahoans United I), 175 Idaho 708, 570 P.3d 1137 (2025). We will only recount here the facts that are necessary to resolve this action. In Idahoans United I, we held that the Attorney General’s short ballot title and the Idaho Division of Financial Management’s fiscal impact statement did not substantially comply with their governing statutes, while the long ballot title did. Id. at 713, 570 P.3d at 1142. We granted writs of mandamus directing revision of the short ballot title and fiscal impact statement, retained jurisdiction, and later concluded that the revised materials substantially complied with their governing statutes. Id. at 731–33, 570 P.3d at 1160–62. After we approved the revised short ballot title and fiscal impact statement, Idahoans United conducted its signature campaign and gathered enough valid signatures to satisfy the statutory requirements for ballot qualification. On July 13, 2026, the Secretary of State certified that the Initiative qualified for the ballot and would appear on the November 3, 2026, general election ballot as Proposition One. 2 Idaho Code section 34-1810(1)(b) states that the official ballot for a qualifying initiative must include “a clear and concise statement as to the effect of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote, prepared jointly by the attorney general and secretary of state.” I.C. § 34-1810(1)(b). In an effort to comply with this statutory mandate, Respondents conferred and jointly prepared the following statements for Proposition One: YES: 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. NO: 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. On August 24, 2026, the Secretary of State provided the Yes/No Effect Statements to Idahoans United. By that time, the voter pamphlet, which included the Yes/No Effect Statements, had already been sent to the printer and the final ballot language had been distributed to Idaho’s 44 county clerks. Idahoans United objected to the prepared Yes/No Effect Statements and asked Respondents to replace them with the following statements: A YES vote means Proposition One will become state law. A NO vote means state law regarding abortion will remain unchanged. (Italics in original.) Respondents declined to adopt Idahoans United’s proposed statements. The parties later met but were unable to resolve their dispute. Idahoans United then filed this original action on August 27, 2026. In its Verified Petition, Idahoans United alleges that Respondents exceeded the authority granted by section 34-1810(1)(b) by using the Yes/No Effect Statements to characterize the substance of both Proposition One and existing Idaho law, rather than to merely state the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote. It also alleges that neither challenged statement satisfies the statute’s “clear and concise” requirement. Respondents contend that the statute does not authorize judicial review of the statements and, alternatively, that the statements substantially comply with the statute. They also argue that Idahoans United lacks standing to bring this original action, that sovereign immunity bars relief, and that this Court’s consideration of the petition violates the Idaho Constitution’s separation of powers provision. All parties seek attorney fees. Because of the looming deadlines for printing the ballots, we set an accelerated briefing and oral argument schedule and now issue this opinion on an expedited basis. 3 II. ANALYSIS A. Idahoans United has standing to bring this original action. “It is a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence that a person wishing to invoke a court’s jurisdiction must have standing.” Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102, 104, 44 P.3d 1157, 1159 (2002) (citing Van Valkenburgh v. Citizens for Term Limits, 135 Idaho 121, 124, 15 P.3d 1129, 1132 (2000)). Although the Idaho Constitution contains no “case or controversy” requirement, this Court has adopted standing as a “self-imposed cons

Read the full story at cases.laws.com

Idaho News

September 2026