Republicans Prove There Was a Big Catch About ‘Leaving Abortion to the States’

To say the 2024 election was a mixed bag for abortion rights would be a gigantic understatement. While voters approved seven out of 10 pro-choice ballot measures, they also elected Donald Trump to a second term, which threatens abortion access nationwide. As we brace for federal restrictions, state lawmakers are moving to hamper future abortion ballot campaigns, and are even attacking amendments that have already passed. 

Bills introduced across the country would make it harder to get proposals on the ballot, more difficult to pass them and would undermine newly adopted constitutional amendments. These actions directly contradict conservative refrains that the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade would send the issue of abortion back to the states. It turns out that Republicans don’t actually like it when voters have a direct say on abortion, because access to abortion is popular. They would prefer representative democracy, or the people electing lawmakers to gerrymandered districts to vote on issues for them.

Here are some of the most recent attacks on direct democracy.

Idaho lawmakers are moving to make it harder to amend the state constitution with House Bill 2, which would raise the threshold for amendments to pass from a simple majority to 60%. It’s no coincidence that a group called Idahoans United for Women and Families had already announced a campaign to overturn the state’s devastating abortion ban via a measure on the November 2026 ballot. Idaho’s ban lacks exceptions for threats to patient health and the Biden administration sued the state for violating a federal law regulating emergency room care. 

During the four months the law was in effect, doctors airlifted six patients to neighboring states to get care, rather than risk prosecution. (The Trump administration is expected to drop the case, but a hospital system sued the state itself last month to try to keep the law blocked.)

If H.B. 2 passes, it would make it much harder to restore abortion access in the state. Luke Mayville, co-founder of pro-ballot initiative group Reclaim Idaho, told the Idaho Capital-Sun that lawmakers “are attempting to rig the process so that future initiatives will fail even when they are supported by the majority of voters.”

It’s a common strategy: South Dakota lawmakers are also trying to raise the passage threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority up to 60%. Of the 18 states that allow voters to initiate their own amendments, only two have a vote requirement that high: Florida and Illinois. The bill to increase the benchmark, House Joint Resolution 5003, could head to voters in 2026 and, curiously, only needs a simple majority to pass. It seems the drafters don’t want to hold their own proposal to the standard it would enshrine.

South Dakota politicians tried and failed to achieve this aim in 2018 and 2022. (Ohio lawmakers also tried this tactic in 2023 ahead of an abortion amendment and failed, while the pro-choice measure later passed with 57% support.) Another proposal would increase the number of signatures required for amendments to make the South Dakota ballot from 10% of the general electorate to 15%. 

Rick Weiland, who sponsored last year’s unsuccessful abortion amendment, told the Associated Press, “they’re attempting to orchestrate the death of direct democracy by a thousand cuts.” That amendment, which did not have support from groups like Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, failed by a vote of 41% to 59%. But a women-led group is in the early stages of preparing a campaign for 2026. 

Florida is another state where a 2024 abortion ballot measure failed. Amendment 4 received a majority of the vote with 57%, but did not pass because of a 60% floor enshrined in 2006. The state bans abortions after embryonic cardiac activity, or about six weeks of pregnancy, and it seems Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) doesn’t want voters to have another chance to overturn the law. DeSantis proposed changes he wants the legislature to pass that would effectively end citizen-led amendments by requiring people to go to an elections office to sign a petition or request one by mail. That would mean no more clipboard-wielding people collecting signatures on sidewalks.

Overturning Roe was never just about sending abortion back to the states.

For petitions that do somehow manage to get enough signatures, DeSantis’ proposal would even require the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether they comply with the “inalienable rights” section of the state constitution, which grants rights to life, liberty and happiness. When the court’s seven justices considered Amendment 4 last year, it only got approved by one vote. Three of them said the measure should not appear on the ballot because it didn’t inform voters that it could undermine the rights of fetuses “to enjoy and defend life” under the state constitution. 

Michelle Morton, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Florida, told the Tampa Bay Times that this provision in particular feels targeted at abortion amendments. “It’s unfortunate that when the governor saw that so many people want to repeal these bans, this is the reaction,” Morton said. Lawmakers did not act on DeSantis’ proposal in a recent special session, but they could consider it during the regular session that begins in March.

In Arkansas, lawmakers want to throw sand in the gears of signature collection. Senate Bill 210 would require canvassers to read the ballot title to every person interested in signing the petition, while Senate Bill 208 would require them to ask to see photo ID before a person can sign. If the voter cannot produce ID, they cannot sign. In August 2024, the state Supreme Court rejected an abortion amendment due to a paperwork error for signatures collected by paid canvassers; the campaign fell about 3,000 signatures short.

Even more galling than attacking future ballot measures, some lawmakers are trying to undermine amendments that voters already approved.

Arizonans passed a ballot measure guaranteeing the right to abortion until fetal viability with 62% of the vote in November. Earlier this month, one Arizona lawmaker filed House Concurrent Resolution 2058, a proposal for a new ballot measure that, if passed, would allow state lawmakers to preserve “prenatal life at all stages of development,” meaning they could enact bans. This is an attempt to overturn Proposition 139, which sponsor state Rep. Rachel Keshel (R) claimed was warranted. “I think voters were misled on Prop 139,” she told Capitol Media Services. “There were a lot of untruths about it.”

But no state can top the brazen efforts by Missouri Republicans to undermine Amendment 3, which passed with nearly 52% support to overturn the state’s abortion ban. Lawmakers introduced a fetal personhood bill called the “Missouri Prenatal Equal Protection Act” that defines life as beginning at fertilization. This would ban all abortions in contravention to Amendment 3, which established a right to abortion until fetal viability. 

Another proposal, House Bill 194, would ban abortion after cardiac activity, again defying the constitutional amendment. But its sponsor, state Rep. Brian Seitz (R), told reporters that the bill is about defining viability as starting after the “heartbeat” can be detected — except that’s before the heart is even formed.

Another tactic is to send a second ballot measure to voters, but this time it would ban both abortion and youth gender-affirming care, which doesn’t have as much popular support. House Joint Resolution 54 is a cynical attempt to get voters to allow abortion restrictions, wrapped in the guise of choice. “This is not politicians making decisions for you, your doctor and your healthcare,” state Rep. Jamie Gragg (R) told Fox2 St. Louis. “This is actually letting you guys make that decision again.”

And, after a judge blocked restrictions that paved the way for abortions to resume, one Republican lawmaker really gave the game away. “I’m here to tell you the Missouri supermajority of Republicans will not stand for this,” said state Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman. “There will be another option to vote, so that people understand this is not going to continue in the state of Missouri.” The people of Missouri voted for abortion access to be restored, but here is Coleman saying she will wield GOP power in the statehouse to try to undo that result.

Overturning Roe was never just about sending abortion back to the states. It was a necessary step on the path to allowing pre-existing state bans to take effect, and to banning abortion nationwide. Republicans keep showing us that their claims about giving voters agency to determine laws where they live were lies.

---

Susan Rinkunas is an independent journalist covering abortion, reproductive health, and politics. She is a contributing writer at Jezebel and her reporting has appeared in The Guardian, Slate, The New Republic, The Nation and more.

As a Democracy Docket contributor, Susan covers the intersection of abortion, bodily autonomy and democracy.