(WXYZ) — Michigan voters will likely see abortion rights on the ballot after the State Supreme Court voted 5-2 in favor of directing the Michigan Board of State Canvassers to approve the petition.
The ruling came down on Thursday evening, and the Board of State Canvassers have a meeting scheduled Friday where they will likely approve the petition.
Related: Michigan Supreme Court orders voter rights initiative onto November ballot
Last week, the board voted 2-2 on the petition, which had enough signatures to go to the ballot, after two Republican board members voted against putting it on the ballot. The two Democratic board members voted for it.
Many of those against the proposal argued against abortion but also asked the board to vote against the proposal because of typographical errors. Two groups earlier this month filed challenges to the form, citing minimal spacing throughout the text of the language, and another group argued a petition cannot insert nonexistent words in the Constitution.
Michigan Supreme Court ruling on abortion rights petition by WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit on Scribd
"It is undisputed that there are sufficient signatures to warrant certification. The only challenge to the petition is in regard to whether there is sufficient space between certain words of the text of the proposed amendment. MCL 168.482(3) requires only that “[t]he full text of the amendment so proposed must follow the summary and be printed in 8-point type.” The “full text” of the amendment is present: regardless of the existence or extent of the spacing, all of the words remain and they remain in the same order, and it is not disputed that they are printed in 8-point type," the court wrote in its order. "In this case, the meaning of the words has not changed by the alleged insufficient spacing between them. Assuming that the challengers’ objection to the spacing represents a challenge to the “form” of the petition that the Board properly 2 considered, the petition has fulfilled all statutory form requirements, and the Board thus has a clear legal duty to certify the petition."
Justice Brian Zahra, in his dissenting opinion, wrote, "The Court, under the pressure to decide the question forthwith in order to ensure timely production of the ballots, has decided to grant mandamus without oral argument. While I would prefer to engage in oral argument before deciding this issue, pressed for a ruling, I must conclude that plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus."
The proposal would be titled Proposal 3, with the proposed language on the ballot reading:
"Proposal 22-3
A proposal to amend the state constitution to establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make all decisions about pregnancy; allow state to prohibit abortion in some cases; and forbid prosecution of individuals exercising established right
This proposed constitutional amendment would:
- Establish new individual right to reproductive freedom, including right to make and carry out all decisions about pregnancy, such as prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion, miscarriage management, and infertility;
- Allow state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability unless needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health;
- Forbid state discrimination in enforcement of this right; prohibit prosecution of an individual, or a person helping a pregnant individual, for exercising rights established by this amendment; and invalidate all state laws that conflict with this amendment.
Should this proposal be adopted?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO"
Michigan currently has a 1931 law banning abortion in place, but that law is on hold while challenges to it make its way through the court system.
