This week, the Missouri Supreme Court shut down a last-ditch effort to block an abortion rights measure from appearing on the state’s ballot this November — the latest attempt by anti-abortion rights activists to stifle direct democracy in the state.
Immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, a near-total abortion ban went into effect in the Show Me State. In response, abortion rights activists in Missouri gathered signatures to place a proposal on the ballot to overturn the ban and legalize abortion. Advocates turned in more than 380,000 signatures — more than twice the 171,000 signatures required to qualify. In August, the Missouri secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot.
- Less than 10 days later, an anti-abortion activists and two Missouri lawmakers filed a lawsuit to block the amendment, alleging that the measure violates the state constitution.
- Last weekend, a judge ruled in favor of those against the measure, raising the possibility that it would not appear on the ballot. On Monday, the secretary of state decertified the initiative.
But on Tuesday — just hours before the state’s ballots were to be finalized — the state Supreme Court ruled the measure could remain on the ballot.
- The battle was one of several conservative efforts to sabotage citizen-led initiatives aimed at protecting reproductive rights.
- Records we previously obtained from Missouri show how state Sen. Mike Moon — a staunchly anti-abortion rights legislator — sought to subvert the abortion rights measure by trying to amend the ballot initiative process.
- Learn more about our investigation into efforts to undermine abortion rights ballot measures — and direct democracy — here.
New Evidence in Cochise County Lawsuit
This week, we provided new evidence to an Arizona judge showing that Cochise County Supervisor Tom Crosby used his personal cell phone and email account for official business.
- Crosby and fellow supervisor Peggy Judd had refused to certify the 2022 election results by the state’s deadline, and our public records lawsuit against them seeks documents related to that decision as well as election administration changes.
- Last month, American Oversight asked the court to order Crosby and Judd to answer specific questions about whether they had searched their personal devices and accounts for records responsive to our public records requests, because no records from those devices and accounts had been produced.
- The new evidence further supports our motion to compel Crosby’s and Judd’s deposition testimony.
- The supervisors had refused to answer any questions, citing the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
On Sept. 6, the defendants finally provided records from Cochise County Recorder David W. Stevens’ cell phone and personal email accounts, which had been promised weeks earlier and were not included in previous document productions.
- The records include emails from Crosby’s personal email account, responsive to our request for records about the supervisors’ vote in 2022 to order a hand count of ballots.
- The newly released records also include text messages between Crosby and Stevens, exchanged on personal cell phones, in which they discussed official county election business.
- The records indicate that Crosby, Judd, nor anyone else searched the supervisors’ devices and accounts in response to requests or during litigation. A forensic specialist’s search of Stevens’ devices provided independent corroborating evidence that Crosby’s personal accounts were never searched.
“This new evidence exposes the depth of Crosby’s misconduct, showing he deliberately used personal email and text messages to conduct official election business — yet not a single message has been produced in response to our public records requests or in this lawsuit,” American Oversight’s interim executive director Chioma Chukwu said.
- “The public deserves the truth, not more stonewalling,” she added. “It’s past time for Crosby and Judd to stop hiding behind flimsy Fifth Amendment excuses. The court should order them to answer questions under oath, or assume their silence is as telling as the answers they’re trying to avoid.”
- American Oversight’s lawsuit is ongoing and we continue to seek accountability from election officials who have sought to disrupt the Democratic process.
There will be no American Oversight newsletter next week. We will be back in your inbox with the latest news on Friday, Sept. 27!
Other Stories We're Following
Election Denial and Threats to Democracy
- Fears mount that election deniers could disrupt vote count in US swing states (Guardian)
- Right-wing news site recruits election deniers to cover the 2024 election (Rolling Stone)
- NC county election official reprimanded for spreading false information, advocating for GOP (Raleigh News & Observer)
- Coming this November to North Carolina polling places: Partisan election ‘observers’ (North Carolina Newsline)
- LaRose wants Yost to investigate after election fraud cases yielded few county prosecutions (Dayton Daily News)
- ACLU drops preemptive lawsuit after Michigan county canvasser swears he’ll certify November election (Votebeat)
- Pinal County launches audit of voting systems after supervisor denies outcome in primary (Arizona Republic)
- Trump urges police officers to watch for voter fraud (New York Times)
- Heritage Foundation spreads deceptive videos about noncitizen voters (New York Times)
Voting Rights
- How unfounded GOP claims about noncitizen voting could cost some eligible voters their rights (Votebeat)
- Dodge County sheriff encouraged clerks not to use drop boxes this fall (WisPolitics)
- Northern Wisconsin town faces new complaint about barriers to accessible voting (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
- GOP bid to remove polling sites from Tarrant County college campuses fails (Texas Tribune)
- LULAC steps up voter registration after Texas attorney general's raids (NBC News)
- Top election officials warn postal service of mail ballot issues (New York Times)
- Republican lawsuit tries to stop new Georgia Election Board rules (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
- Wisconsin Elections Commission approves administrative rule for observers (Wisconsin Examiner)
National News
- They won their immigration cases. But months later, they still await release (NPR)
- How colleges are changing their rules on protesting (New York Times)
- Certification of election will get extra security to try to prevent another Capitol attack (New York Times)
- Aetna's denial of gender-affirming care taken to court (Axios)
In the States
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a case on the future of the state’s elections leader (Associated Press)
- Ohio appeals court hears arguments in gender-affirming care case (Ohio Capital Journal)
- The NYPD is tossing out hundreds of misconduct cases — including stop-and-frisks — without even looking at them (ProPublica)
- Top officials at Kentucky prison claimed pay for hundreds of hours they didn’t work (Lexington Herald Leader)
Abortion and Reproductive Rights
- Abortions are down under Florida’s 6-week ban but not by as much as in other states, study says (Associated Press)
- Police are questioning Florida voters about signing an abortion rights ballot petition (Associated Press)
- Judge rules against Planned Parenthood in case seeking to weaken abortion ban (Indiana Capital Chronicle)
- Republicans are launching last-minute attempts to keep abortion off the ballot (HuffPost)
- North Dakota judge vacates state abortion ban, ruling it unconstitutional (News from the States)
- Nebraska Supreme Court hears arguments to block abortion measures (Nebraska Examiner)
Threats to Education
- Voucher Dilemma: Taxpayer cost jumped from $15.5 million to more than $300 million (Indianapolis Star)
- Florida county restoring dozens of books to school libraries after ‘book ban’ lawsuit (Politico)
- ACLU steps into book ban legal battle in Llano (Texas Public Radio)
Trump Accountability
- Trump threatens lawyers, donors and election officials with prison for 'unscrupulous behavior' (NBC News)
- Georgia judge tosses 3 more charges in Trump election interference case (New York Times)
|