Could a Missouri judge block 2026 vote on abortion ban? What you need to know
A Missouri judge will decide whether to block a proposed abortion ban from reaching statewide ballots next year after a trial on Wednesday marked the first major courtroom fight over the upcoming ballot measure.
Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green on Wednesday heard arguments from lawyers on both sides of a lawsuit filed against the proposed abortion ban. The proposed constitutional amendment will be on Missouri voters’ Nov. 3, 2026, ballots unless blocked by Green.
Green did not immediately issue a ruling on the lawsuit during Wednesday’s one-day bench trial.
The lawsuit comes after Republican state lawmakers in May voted to put the proposed abortion ban, called Amendment 3, on the ballot. The measure was in response to a historic statewide vote last November that legalized abortion and overturned a previous ban on the procedure.
Green’s highly anticipated decision will have major implications for the future of abortion access, one of the most contentious issues in Missouri. But it also likely won’t be the final say in the case, which will almost certainly make its way to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Ahead of the ruling, here’s what you need to know about the case and Wednesday’s trial:
Who’s involved in the case?
The ACLU of Missouri and the Missouri-based law firm Stinson filed a lawsuit last month on behalf of Anna Fitz-James, a retired St. Louis-area doctor who initially filed a ballot measure to legalize abortion.
Chuck Hatfield, an attorney with Stinson who is well-known for his work regarding state government issues, argued on behalf of Fitz-James during Wednesday’s trial.
The lead defendant in the case is Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican who certified the measure for the 2026 ballot. The suit also named three Republican state lawmakers as defendants, Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin from Shelbina, House Speaker Jonathan Patterson from Lee’s Summit and Rep. Ed Lewis, the bill sponsor from Moberly.
Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi argued on behalf of the defendants on Wednesday, marking Capozzi’s first trial as solicitor general since his appointment to the position by Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
What does the ballot measure say?
Unless removed from the ballot or rewritten, the following question will appear on voters’ ballots:
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Guarantee access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages;
- Ensure women’s safety during abortions;
- Ensure parental consent for minors;
- Allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape, and incest;
- Require physicians to provide medically accurate information; and
- Protect children from gender transition?”
What does the lawsuit say?
The lawsuit argues the proposed abortion ban, which would also ban transgender health care for minors, violates the state constitution’s requirement that ballot measures only deal with one subject.
The suit also alleges that the question that voters will see on their ballots (called a summary statement) and the language posted at polling places (called fair ballot language) are misleading and written to encourage voters to vote in favor of banning abortions.
It specifically points to the fact that the ballot language does not inform voters that the measure would ban abortions, nor does it state that it would strike down last November’s vote.
What happened during the trial?
Hatfield and Capozzi addressed three main arguments related to the proposed ballot measure.
First, Hatfield argued that the proposal violates the state constitution’s requirement that amendments only deal with one subject, often called a single-subject rule. Due to the inclusion of the transgender language, Hatfield argued that Green should remove the question from the ballot.
“You can’t combine more than one thing in a proposal that the people are asked to vote on,” Hatfield said. He compared the ballot measure to a hypothetical amendment that asked voters to keep the Kansas City Chiefs in Missouri and also banned cryptocurrency.
“The case law tells us how terrible of a thing that is,” he said. “It’s anti-democratic.”
Capozzi, in response, argued that the measure did not violate the single-subject rule. He said that abortions and transgender health care for minors are both under the same umbrella of “reproductive health care.”
“All health care that is related to having children is reproductive health care,” Capozzi said.
However, if Green doesn’t block the measure from the ballot, Hatfield asked the court to instead certify new, more accurate language for the ballot question and the language at polling places. He argued that the ballot question and fair ballot language were both misleading to voters.
Capozzi argued that both were legally sufficient.
What could happen next?
The trial on Wednesday set up several different scenarios: Green could block the measure entirely from the ballot; he could keep the amendment on the ballot with its current wording; he could keep the measure on the ballot with new, more accurate wording; or he could order Hoskins, the secretary of state, to rewrite the language.
Any decision is likely to be appealed and is almost certain to end up in front of the state Supreme Court.
When could a decision happen?
It remains unclear when Green could issue a ruling in the case. After the trial, he gave attorneys on both sides some homework.
Both Hatfield and Capozzi have until Tuesday to submit briefs to Green showing whether a judge has the power to rewrite ballot language drafted by state lawmakers. Green could issue a ruling or call for additional hearings after weighing those legal arguments.
Green is also weighing a separate case that could guide how he rules on the proposed abortion ban. A day earlier, Green heard arguments over a lawsuit against a new state law that changes the procedure for rewriting ballot language.
Viewed as a key tool in the Republican fight against abortion access, the law, which goes into effect Thursday, restricts judges from rewriting misleading language on ballot measures. If ballot language is struck down in court, Hoskins will get three opportunities to write his own before the courts can redraft the wording.
How did we get here?
The upcoming ballot measure signified a major retaliatory response from Republican lawmakers after nearly 52% of voters overturned the state’s abortion ban.
Last November’s historic vote offered a fierce rebuke of Republican state lawmakers who had spent decades restricting access, making Missouri the first state to overturn a near-total ban after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.
In the wake of the vote, abortion opponents have consistently argued that Missourians didn’t understand what they were voting on when they approved the measure.
The proposed abortion ban, if approved, would completely strike down the language from last November’s vote.
The measure would allow abortions in medical emergencies and cases of fetal anomalies, such as birth defects. It would also allow the procedure in exceptionally rare cases of rape or incest within 12 weeks of gestational age.
The language of the legislation, however, is silent on when exactly abortion would be banned, making it unclear whether the amendment is intended to allow the state’s previous abortion ban to take effect or give lawmakers the ability to pass legislation to restrict access.
