kmvt.com · Allison Shafter · September 7, 2026
Idaho Supreme Court approves state’s revised Prop 1 ballot language
# Idaho Supreme Court approves state’s revised Prop 1 ballot language
The exterior of the Idaho Supreme Court building in Boise as seen on Jan. 14, 2026.(Pat Sutphin- Idaho Capital Sun)
By Allison Shafter
Published: Sep. 7, 2026 at 1:57 PM MDT| Updated: 1 hour ago
The Idaho Supreme Court has approved revised statements to appear on the general election ballot concerning Proposition 1, an abortion rights initiative formally known as the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.
The decision comes after the court previously ruled that the language in the original statements prepared by the Idaho Attorney General’s Office and Secretary of State’s Office did not comply with state code regarding clear and concise language.
The original statements included the following language:
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.
The Idaho Supreme Court gave the Attorney General and Secretary of State Offices a deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Saturday to submit the revised statements, which the Court says were submitted by the deadline set in the previous ruling.
The revised statements include the language below:
YES: A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability—defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures—and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy.
NO: A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children byprohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.
Idahoans United for Women and Families, who filed the lawsuit, filed an objection to the revised statements, arguing they were not concise and omitted the felony penalties present in Idaho’s current abortion law.
“Rather than complying with the Court’s direction toward concision, Respondents have expanded the Yes/No Statements into lengthy substantive summaries,” the objection wrote.
The objection also stated that the new replacement statements read like ballot titles, rather than statements describing the effect of the vote. Idahoans United requested that the revised statements “clearly and concisely state only the effect of a “yes” or “no” vote.”
On Sept. 6, the Idaho Supreme Court issued the substitute opinion that the revised statements above did comply with Idaho law regarding clear and concise ballot language, overruling the objection.
In a 4-1 ruling, the court concluded that the decision was consistent with its Sept. 4 ruling.
Justice Zahn dissented, arguing that the revised No Statement does not substantially comply with Idaho code because it introduces new terminology and only restates one aspect of the current law.
Zahn wrote the No Statement uses the term “preborn children,” which does not appear in Idaho abortion statutes or in the Yes statement. Per the second point, Zahn argued that the Yes statement addresses four characteristics of the initiative, while the No statement does not address “current Idaho law concerning licensing, civil, and criminal liability for healthcare providers.”
- KMVT - 1100 Blue Lakes Blvd. N. - Twin Falls, ID 83301 - (208) 733-1100
publicfile@kmvt.com - (208) 733-1100