Montana CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)

Montana CI-128
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Abortion
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Montana CI-128, the Right to Abortion Initiative, was on the ballot in Montana as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the Montana Constitution to: provide a state constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

A "no" vote opposed amending the Montana Constitution to: provide a state constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

Election results

See also: Results for abortion-related ballot measures, 2024

Montana CI-128
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		345,070	57.76%
No		252,300	42.24%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did the initiative do?

See also: Text of measure

The constitutional amendment created an explicit constitutional right to abortion. Going into the election, the right to abortion in Montana depends on case law surrounding the constitution's right to privacy provision. In Armstrong v. State (1999), the Montana Supreme Court held that the state constitution's right to privacy included a right to abortion until fetal viability.

The ballot initiative provided that "there is a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion." The government may regulate abortion after fetal viability, except in cases "to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient." This right cannot be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means. A compelling interest means a government interest to address a medically acknowledged health risk to the mother and does not infringe on the patient's own decision making.

The amendment prohibited the government from penalizing, prosecuting, or taking any adverse action against a person based on their pregnancy outcomes nor against any person who aids or assists another person in obtaining an abortion.

What is the status and history of abortion in Montana?

See also: Background

Abortion in Montana is currently legal until fetal viability. On August 14, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that parental consent is not required for a minor to obtain an abortion, overturning a law passed by the state legislature in 2013. In 2012, voters approved LR-120, referred to the ballot by the state legislature, which requires notification of a parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor under 16 years old at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. State Medicaid funds can be used to pay for abortion services. Abortions may be performed by qualified health care professionals including physicians. Montana provides protection against harassment and physical harm for individuals entering abortion clinics.

What did supporters and opponents say about the measure?

See also: Support and Opposition

Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights led the campaign in support of the initiative. MSRR is supported by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, the ACLU of Montana, Forward Montana, and The Fairness Project. MSRR said, "This is an exciting opportunity to secure our rights for generations to come. Now is the time to ensure power remains in the hands of the people of Montana, so everyone has the freedom to prevent, continue, or end a pregnancy should they choose. Politicians have no business controlling our bodies and our futures. We know that Montanans will show up for their right to control their own bodies, access the health care they need, and secure their right to abortion."

Republican legislators in Montana have come out in opposition to the measure, including the all-Republican six-member Law and Justice Interim Committee, who said that the initiative was too broad and would limit the state from regulating abortion to protect patients. State Sen. Keith Regier (R-3) said the initiative is "vague and takes away legal protection from women."

How have Montanans voted on abortion-related ballot measures in the past?

In 2022, Montana voters rejected LR-131 with 52.55% of voters in favor and 47.45% opposed. The measure, which was referred to the ballot by the state legislature, would have considered infants born alive at any state of developments as legal persons and required medical care to be provided to them if they were born alive after an induced labor, a cesarean section, an attempted abortion, or another method to receive medical care. In 2023, the state legislature passed a similar law, along mostly partisan lines with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. The bill differed from the ballot measure by having lesser penalties and not requiring medical care if death was imminent.

In 2012, voters approved LR-120 with 70.55% of voters in favor and 29.45% opposed. The measure, referred to the ballot by the state legislature, which required notification of a parent or legal guardian of an pregnant minor under 16 years old at least 48 hours before performing an abortion.

What states have decided on abortion ballot measures in 2022 and 2023?

See also: History of abortion ballot measures

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion and overturned Roe. v. Wade, placing many abortion policy decisions with the states. From 2022 to 2023, seven ballot measures addressing abortion have been on the ballot, with 2022 having the highest number of abortion ballot measures on record in a single year. Four measures—in Vermont, Michigan, and California in 2022, and Ohio in 2023— were sponsored by campaigns that described themselves as pro-choice and created state constitutional rights to abortion. All four measures were approved. Three measures—in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana— were sponsored by campaigns describing themselves as pro-life and were designed to explicitly provide that there is no right to abortion in the state constitution. All three were defeated.

What states voted on abortion ballot measures in 2024?

See also: 2023 and 2024 abortion-related ballot measures

The following table provides a list of abortion-related measures that were on the ballot in 2024:

State	Date	Measure	Description	Outcome
Arizona	Nov. 5, 2024	Right to Abortion Initiative	• Establishes the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability	a
Colorado	Nov. 5, 2024	Right to Abortion Initiative	• Provide a constitutional right to abortion in the state constitution and allow the use of public funds for abortion	a
Florida	Nov. 5, 2024	Florida Amendment 4	• Provide a constitutional right to abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider	d
Maryland	Nov. 5, 2024	Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment	• Amend the Maryland Constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy"	a
Missouri	Nov. 5, 2024	Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment	• Amend the Missouri Constitution to provide the right for reproductive freedom, and provide that the state legislature may enact laws that regulate abortion after fetal viability	a
Montana	Nov. 5, 2024	CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative	• Amend the Montana Constitution to provide a state constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion"	a
Nebraska	Nov. 5, 2024	Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment	• Amend the Nebraska Constitution to provide that "unborn children shall be protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters"	a
Nebraska	Nov. 5, 2024	Right to Abortion Initiative	• Amend the Nebraska Constitution to provide that "all persons shall have a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability"	d
New York	Nov. 5, 2024	Equal Protection of Law Amendment	• Add language to the New York Bill of Rights to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."	a
Nevada	Nov. 5, 2024	Right to Abortion Initiative	• Establish the constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to protect the life, physical health, or mental health of the pregnant woman.	a
South Dakota	Nov. 5, 2024	Constitutional Amendment G	• Provide a trimester framework for regulating abortion in the South Dakota Constitution	d

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for the measure was as follows:

“

CI-128 would amend the Montana Constitution to expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion. It would prohibit the government from denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability. It would also prohibit the government from denying or burdening access to an abortion when a treating healthcare professional determines it is medically indicated to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health. CI-128 prevents the government from penalizing patients, healthcare providers, or anyone who assists someone in exercising their right to make and carry out voluntary decisions about their pregnancy. [] YES on Constitutional Amendment CI-128 [] NO on Constitutional Amendment CI-128

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, Montana Constitution

The ballot initiative added a Section 36 to Article II of the Montana Constitution. The following struck-through text was deleted and underlined text was added.

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

Section 36. Right to make decisions about pregnancy. (1) There is a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion. This right shall not be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means. (2) The government may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability provided that in no circumstance shall the government deny or burden access to an abortion that, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient. (3) The government shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against a person based on the person’s actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes. The government shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against a person for aiding or assisting another person in exercising their right to make and carry out decisions about their pregnancy with their voluntary consent. (4) For purposes of this section: (a) A government interest is “compelling” only if it clearly and convincingly addresses a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk to a pregnant patient and does not infringe on the patient’s autonomous decision making. (b) “Fetal viability” means the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title 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 initiative proponents wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 14, and the FRE is 30. The word count for the ballot title is 112.

Support

Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Jon Tester (D)

Candidates

• Ryan Busse (D) - Gubernatorial candidate

Organizations

• ACLU of Montana
• Forward Montana
• Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana
• The Fairness Project
• Think Big America

Arguments

• Akilah Deernose, the executive director of the ACLU of Montana: "Montanans have made it clear that they are sick and tired of anti-abortion extremists interfering with their private medical decisions, and so today, we could not be more excited for where we are."
• Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights: "Now is the time to ensure power remains in the hands of the people of Montana, so everyone has the freedom to prevent, continue, or end a pregnancy should they choose. Politicians have no business controlling our bodies and our futures. We know that Montanans will show up for their right to control their own bodies, access the health care they need, and secure their right to abortion."
• U.S. Sen. Jon Tester (D): "I believe women should be able to make their own healthcare decisions. That's the bottom line. It shouldn't be the federal government. It shouldn't be a bureaucrat. It shouldn't be a judge."

Opposition

Defend Life and Montana Life Defense Fund led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Greg Gianforte (R)

Candidates

• Tim Sheehy (R) - U.S. Senate Candidate

Organizations

• MCC Social Advocacy
• Montana Family Foundation

Arguments

• Montana Family Foundation: "[The initiative] would create a constitutional right to UNLIMITED ABORTION in Montana including partial-birth abortion or dismemberment abortion. ... Passing CI-128 will increase taxpayer-funded abortion procedures in Montana. ... CI-128 is about more than abortion. Arguably, the language of CI-128 impacts so-called 'reproductive rights' and 'pregnancy outcomes' which may include a right to undergo radical, irreversible gender reassignment surgery or hormone intervention to alter the reproductive system."
• MCC Social Advocacy: "Abortion is currently legal in Montana up to the point of fetal viability—generally at 24 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions for after viability. Before performing an abortion on an underage girl, abortionists are required to notify her parents, with some exceptions which safeguard women when notifying parents would create an unsafe situation. CI-128 would remove all regulation, making Montana into an abortion state, and allowing crimes such as coercion and human trafficking to go unchecked."
• U.S. Sen. candidate Tim Sheehy (R): "At some point, we have to protect the life of the child. Could be the next Albert Einstein, the next Michael Jordan, the next Jon Tester. For all we know, that life also deserves to be protected and I'll do that."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Montana ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through November 2, 2024.

Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights is the ballot measure committee leading the campaign in support of the initiative. The committee reported $18.2 million in contributions.

Defend Life, For Montana Families, and Montana Life Defense Fund registered to oppose the initiative. The committees together reported $222,502.58 in cash and in-kind contributions. Additionally, Saving Babies No on CI-128 registered to oppose the initiative but did not report campaign finance activity.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$17,171,243.60	$1,057,652.58	$18,228,896.18	$17,039,119.82	$18,096,772.40
Oppose	$184,231.53	$38,271.05	$222,502.58	$162,565.42	$200,836.47

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of CI-128
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights	$17,171,243.60	$1,057,652.58	$18,228,896.18	$17,039,119.82	$18,096,772.40
Total	$17,171,243.60	$1,057,652.58	$18,228,896.18	$17,039,119.82	$18,096,772.40

Donors

The following were the top donors to the support committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$3,000,000.00	$8,837.50	$3,008,837.50
Advocacy Action Fund	$3,000,000.00	$0.00	$3,000,000.00
GISWF - Montana	$2,620,000.00	$0.00	$2,620,000.00
The Fairness Project	$1,255,200.00	$8,575.00	$1,263,775.00
Gwendolyn Sontheim	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to CI-128
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Montana Life Defense Fund	$145,302.00	$35,421.05	$180,723.05	$127,987.55	$163,408.60
Defend Life	$25,541.00	$2,450.00	$27,991.00	$21,495.05	$23,945.05
For Montana Families	$13,388.53	$400.00	$13,788.53	$13,082.82	$13,482.82
Total	$184,231.53	$38,271.05	$222,502.58	$162,565.42	$200,836.47

Donors

The following were the top donors to the opposition campaign.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Montana Family Foundation	$119,000.00	$35,421.05	$154,421.05
Dora Girod	$6,000.00	$0.00	$6,000.00
Prolife Montana	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00
Lost Media	$0.00	$2,450.00	$2,450.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

Status of abortion in Montana

See also: Abortion regulations by state

Abortion in Montana is currently legal until fetal viability. Parental notification is required for abortions performed on minors. State Medicaid funds can be used to pay for abortion services. Abortions may be performed by qualified health care professionals including physicians. Montana provides protection against harassment and physical harm for individuals entering abortion clinics.

In 2013, the Montana State Legislature passed a law requiring parental consent for abortions performed on minors, though the law was blocked from taking effect amid litigation. In February 2023, a state court ruled that the parental consent law violated the state constitution's right to privacy. On August 14, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the parental consent law was unconstitutional.

Armstrong v. State

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.

Abortion ballot measures in Montana

See also: Abortion ballot measures in Montana

In 2022, Montana voters rejected LR-131 with 52.55% of voters in favor and 47.45% opposed. The measure, which was referred to the ballot by the state legislature, would have considered infants born alive at any state of developments as legal persons and required medical care to be provided to them if they were born alive after an induced labor, a cesarean section, an attempted abortion, or another method to receive medical care. In 2023, the state legislature passed a similar law, along mostly partisan lines with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. The bill differed from the ballot measure by having lesser penalties and not requiring medical care if death was imminent.

In 2012, voters approved LR-120 with 70.55% of voters in favor and 29.45% opposed. The measure, referred to the ballot by the state legislature, which required notification of a parent or legal guardian of an pregnant minor under 16 years old at least 48 hours before performing an abortion.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

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. On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case.

On June 24, 2022, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States found there was 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.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

See also: Roe v. Wade (1973)

In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade, finding that state laws criminalizing abortion prior to fetal viability violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The high court held that states can regulate and/or prohibit abortions (except those to preserve the life or health of the mother) once a fetus reaches the point of viability. Roe v. Wade defined fetal viability as "the interim point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." The high court further noted that "viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

The ruling established a strict trimester framework to guide state abortion policies. States, according to this framework, were prohibited from banning or regulating abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. During the second trimester, states were permitted to regulate abortion to protect the mother's health. During the third trimester, states were allowed to ban abortion, except in cases where an abortion is needed to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Abortion regulations by state

See also: Abortion regulations by state

As of November 22, 2024, 41 states restricted abortions after a certain point in pregnancy. The remaining nine states and Washington, D.C., did not. Of the 41 states with established thresholds for restrictions on abortion:

• Fourteen states restrict abortion after conception
• Four states restrict abortion at six weeks post-fertilization
• Two states restrict abortion at 12 weeks post-fertilization
• One state restricts abortion at 15 weeks post-fertilization
• One state restricts abortion at 18 weeks since the last menstrual period
• Three states restrict abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization or 22 weeks after the last menstrual period
• Four states restrict abortion at 24 weeks since the last menstrual period
• Eleven states restrict abortion at fetal viability
• One state restricts abortion in the third trimester

The map and table below give more details on state laws restricting abortion based on the stage of pregnancy. Hover over the footnotes in the table for information on legislation pending legal challenges or otherwise not yet in effect.

Some of the terms that are used to describe states' thresholds for abortion restriction include the following:

1. Conception: This threshold prohibits all abortions after conception, although some states provide exceptions if the woman's life or health is threatened.
2. Fetal heartbeat: This threshold restricts abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which may begin six weeks after the last menstrual period.
3. Fetal viability: In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS defined fetal viability. The Supreme Court further noted that "viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
4. Last menstrual period: This threshold marks the beginning of a pregnancy from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period.
5. Post-fertilization: Thresholds using post-fertilization mark the beginning of pregnancy at the time of conception, which can occur up to 24 hours following intercourse. A threshold of 20 weeks post-fertilization is equivalent to 22 weeks since last menstrual period.
6. Post-implantation: Thresholds using post-implantation mark the beginning of pregnancy at the date on which a fertilized egg adheres to the lining of the uterus, roughly five days after fertilization. A threshold of 24 weeks post-implantation is equivalent to 27 weeks since last menstrual period.

State abortion restrictions based on stage of pregnancy
State	Does the state restrict abortion after a specific point in pregnancy?	Threshold for restriction
Alabama	Yes	Conception
Alaska	No	None
Arizona	Yes	15 weeks since last menstrual period
Arkansas	Yes	Conception
California	Yes	Fetal viability
Colorado	No	None
Connecticut	Yes	Fetal viability
Delaware	Yes	Fetal viability
Florida	Yes	Six weeks post-fertilization
Georgia	Yes	Six weeks post-fertilization
Hawaii	Yes	Fetal viability
Idaho	Yes	Conception
Illinois	Yes	Fetal viability
Indiana	Yes	Conception
Iowa	Yes	Six weeks post-fertilization
Kansas	Yes	20 weeks since last menstrual period
Kentucky	Yes	Conception
Louisiana	Yes	Conception
Maine	Yes	Fetal viability
Maryland	No	None
Massachusetts	Yes	24 weeks post-fertilization
Michigan	No	None
Minnesota	No	None
Mississippi	Yes	Conception
Missouri	Yes	Conception
Montana	Yes	Fetal viability
Nebraska	Yes	12 weeks post-fertilization
Nevada	Yes	24 weeks post-fertilization
New Hampshire	Yes	24 weeks since last menstrual period
New Jersey	No	None
New Mexico	No	None
New York	Yes	Fetal viability
North Carolina	Yes	12 weeks post-fertilization
North Dakota	Yes	Conception
Ohio	Yes	20 weeks post-fertilization
Oklahoma	Yes	Conception
Oregon	No	None
Pennsylvania	Yes	24 weeks since last menstrual period
Rhode Island	Yes	Fetal viability
South Carolina	Yes	Six weeks post-fertilization
South Dakota	Yes	Conception
Tennessee	Yes	Conception
Texas	Yes	Conception
Utah	Yes	18 weeks since last menstrual period
Vermont	No	None
Virginia	Yes	Third trimester since last menstrual period
Washington	Yes	Fetal viability
Washington, D.C.	No	None
West Virginia	Yes	Conception
Wisconsin	Yes	20 weeks post-fertilization
Wyoming	Yes	Fetal viability
Sources:Guttmacher Institute, "State Policies on Later Abortions," accessed August 16, 2024; CNA, "TRACKER: Check the status of abortion trigger laws across the U.S.," accessed August 16, 2024; The Fuller Project, "How major abortion laws compare, state by state," accessed August 16, 2024

History of abortion ballot measures

See also: History of abortion 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.

From 1970 to November 2022, there were 53 abortion-related ballot measures, and 43 (81%) 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 10 abortion-related ballot measures had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights. Voters approved seven (70%) and rejected three (30%).

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.

The following graph shows the number of abortion-related ballot measures per year since 1970:

State constitutional rights and abortion-related ballot measures

Constitutional rights

The topic constitutional rights addresses ballot measures that establish a state constitutional right to abortion. Campaigns that support these measures often describe themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights.

State	Year	Measure	Yes	No	Outcome
Arizona	2024	Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative	61.61%	38.39%	a
Colorado	2024	Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative	61.97%	38.03%	a
Florida	2024	Amendment 4, Right to Abortion Initiative	57.17%	42.83%	d
Maryland	2024	Maryland Question 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment	76.06%	23.94%	a
Missouri	2024	Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative	51.60%	48.40%	a
Montana	2024	CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative	57.76%	42.24%	a
Nebraska	2024	Nebraska Initiative 439, Right to Abortion Amendment	49.01%	50.99%	d
Nevada	2024	Nevada Question 6, Right to Abortion Initiative	64.36%	35.64%	a
New York	2024	New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment	62.47%	37.53%	a
South Dakota	2024	Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative	N/A	N/A	d
Ohio	2023	Issue 1: Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative	56.78%	43.22%	a
California	2022	Proposition 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment	66.88%	33.12%	a
Michigan	2022	Proposal 3: Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative	56.66%	43.34%	a
Vermont	2022	Proposal 5: Right to Personal Reproductive Autonomy Amendment	76.77%	23.23%	a

Constitutional interpretation

The topic constitutional interpretation addresses ballot measures designed to provide that state constitutions cannot be interpreted to establish a state constitutional right to abortion. These types of amendments are designed to address previous and future state court rulings on abortion that have prevented or could prevent legislatures from passing certain abortion laws. Campaigns that support these measures often describe themselves as pro-life.

State	Year	Measure	Yes	No	Outcome
Kansas	2022	No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment	41.03%	58.97%	d
Kentucky	2022	No State Constitutional Right to Abortion Amendment	47.65%	52.35%	d
Louisiana	2020	Amendment 1: No Right to Abortion in Constitution Amendment	62.06%	37.94%	a
Alabama	2018	Amendment 2: State Abortion Policy Amendment	59.01%	40.99%	a
West Virginia	2018	Amendment 1: No Right to Abortion in Constitution Measure	51.73%	48.27%	a
Tennessee	2014	Amendment 1: No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment	52.60%	47.40%	a
Florida	2012	Amendment 6: State Constitution Interpretation and Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions Amendment	44.90%	55.10%	d
Massachusetts	1986	Question 1: No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment	41.83%	58.17%	d

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Montana

The state process

In Montana, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Moreover, signature collection must be distributed such that petitions include signatures equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in each of two-fifths (40) of the state's 100 legislative districts in the last gubernatorial election. Petitioners have a maximum of one year to collect signatures and get them verified by county elections officials.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2024 ballot:

• Signatures: 60,359 valid signatures
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures to county clerks was June 21, 2024. The final deadline for county clerks to submit signatures to the secretary of state was July 19, 2024.

County election officials check each signature to make sure the name corresponds to the name of a registered voter. Then they use a 5 percent random sampling method to check the authenticity of the signatures. Signature petitions are then sent to the secretary of state, which certifies the measure for the ballot if enough valid signatures were submitted.

Details about this initiative

• The initiative was filed by Samuel Dickman on November 22, 2023.
• On January 16, 2024, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) determined the initiative to be legally insufficient. Knudsen wrote, "Ballot Measure 14 creates an express right to abortion but denies voters the ability to express their views on the nuance of the right. This is classic logrolling and is prohibited by Article XIV, Section 11."
• On March 19, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision overruled the attorney general's finding and authorized the sponsors to proceed with the initiative process.
• Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights reported submitting about 117,000 signatures to the secretary of state's office on June 21, 2024.
• Sponsors submitted around 81,000 valid signatures and met the distribution in 59 of 100 state House districts.

Signature gathering cost

See also: Ballot measures cost per required signatures analysis

Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting and Landslide Political to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,909,835.00 was spent to collect the 60,359 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $48.21.

Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform signature validity lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters
Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court
Ruling: 2024
Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R)
Plaintiff argument: The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions.	Defendant argument: The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted.

  Source: NBC Montana

Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform, sponsors of three ballot initiatives targeting the 2024 ballot (the abortion initiative, top-four primary initiative, and majority vote requirement for elections initiative), filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) in Lewis and Clark County District Court. The campaigns alleged that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions. The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted.

On July 26, 2024, the Montana First Judicial District Court ruled that voters who are classified as inactive voters are still qualified electors under state law for the pruposes of signing and counting signatures on proposed ballot initiative petitions. The court ordered county elections offices to count the signatures of inactive voters.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Montana

Click "Show" to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Montana.

How to cast a vote in Montana

Poll times In Montana, polling place hours vary throughout the state. Most polling places open at 7:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m., although in areas with fewer than 400 registered voters, polling places may open as late as 12:00 p.m. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To register to vote in Montana, each applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Montana for at least 30 days prior to the election, and at least 18 years old by the day of the election. People serving a felony sentence in a penal institution and those who have been declared by a court to be of unsound mind are not eligible to vote. Citizens can register to vote in person by completing a registration application at their county election office. They can register by mailing the application to their county election administrator or submitting it when applying for or renewing a driver’s license or state ID. Citizens may also register to vote at their county election offices, certain designated locations, or at their designated polling location on Election Day. Automatic registration Montana does not practice automatic voter registration. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Montana does not permit online voter registration. Same-day registration Montana allows same-day voter registration. Residency requirements In order to register to vote in Montana, applicants must have lived in the state for at least 30 days prior to the election. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Montana does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury. All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. As of November 2024, five states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The site My Voter Page, run by the Montana secretary of state’s office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Montana requires voters to present identification while voting. Montana's voter identification requirements are outlined in Section 13-13-114 of Montana Code, as amended when SB 169 was signed into law on April 19, 2021. The law states, "Before an elector is permitted to receive a ballot or vote, the elector shall present to an election judge one of the following forms of identification showing the elector's name:" “ (i) Montana driver's license, Montana state identification card issued pursuant to 61-12-501, military identification card, tribal photo identification card., United States passport, or Montana concealed carry permit; or (ii) (A) a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document that shows the elector's name and current address; and (B) photo identification that shows the elector's name, including but not limited to a school district or postsecondary education photo identification. ” On March 27, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the portion of SB 169 that precluded the use of student ID for voter identification was unconstitutional. See here for more.

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Abortion on the ballot
• Constitutional rights on the ballot
• 2024 petition deadlines

Montana

• Montana ballot measures
• Montana initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Montana Secretary of State Initiative Filings