"These requirements protect voters," said Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, as she described laws that govern how ballot initiatives are worded. "They require them to be fully informed." Martin argued that Amendment 3's wording would "absolutely mislead" voters. "The average voter reading this would have no way of knowing that it has a limiting effect" on state lawmakers regulating abortion.
Proponents immediately asked the state high court to hold Ashcroft - son of former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft - in contempt. They had already successfully sued him over how he summarized the measure for voters, with a different circuit judge calling his wording "unfair, insufficient, inaccurate and misleading."
Collection
[
|
...
]