Where Abortion Rights Will Be on the Ballot in 2024

UPDATE: This article has been revised to reflect recent decisions by state courts, approval of ballot initiatives, and other status changes. 

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization stripped Americans of a federal constitutional right to an abortion, state law largely determines whether abortion care is available in a jurisdiction and under what circumstances.

The decision spurred a flurry of new state laws concerning abortion and state constitutional litigation over those laws, as well as efforts to clarify state abortion rights by amending state constitutions. So far, people in California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont have voted to amend their constitutions to enshrine abortion rights, while voters in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana defeated anti-abortion amendments. Activism around such ballot initiatives continues in 2024, as both abortion rights and anti-abortion advocates across the country work to get the issue on the ballot this fall. 

Amending a state constitution though a citizen-driven ballot amendment is an option available in 17 states. Though the exact process varies from state-to-state, in general, citizens seeking to add an amendment to their state ballot must draft amendment language that fits within the state’s legal parameters and gather a certain number of signatures that meet pre-determined requirements, such as signatures from each congressional district. The language of the amendment must be approved and signatures validated by a secretary of state or other designated official. States have different formulas for calculating the number of signatures needed relating to factors like population or voter turnout in a prior election.

Other processes to amend state constitutions include legislature-driven initiatives, where state lawmakers have the power to put constitutional amendments to a statewide vote. Every state provides for a legislature-driven process to amend the constitution, and in every state but Delaware proposed amendments must be put on the ballot and ratified by the public.

This article rounds up the states that either will have or are working toward securing placement on their November 2024 ballots for measures seeking to define abortion rights. As discussed, some states below were attempting to place such a measure, but were unsuccessful.  

States Where an Abortion Amendment Will Be on the Ballot

The secretary of state of Arizona confirmed that a proposed constitutional amendment to expand abortion care qualified for the ballot under the title “Proposition 139.” The amendment would protect a right to abortion until a pregnancy is viable, with certain exceptions extending that timeline, such as to protect the health of the mother. In April, the Arizona Supreme Court declared a 160-year-old law banning nearly all abortion is enforceable, but stayed the decision while a lower court considered additional arguments on the ban’s constitutionality. Abortion is currently available in Arizona up to 15 weeks. Advocates collected and submitted more than 823,000 signatures, more than double the number required. 

In August, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that pamphlets the state mails to voters describing the amendment can include the term “unborn human being.” State law mandates the descriptions to be “impartial,” and proponents of the amendment argued such language did not meet that requirement.

Colorado’s ballot measure that would enshrine into the state constitution a right to abortion and impede denial or interference with that right, including prohibiting denial of health insurance coverage, was approved in May. No laws currently restrict abortion in Colorado. Leaders of the citizen-driven amendment announced in April they had gathered the more than 124,000 signatures from the state’s voters, including, as required, signatures from voters in each of Colorado’s 35 Senate districts. Separately, anti-abortion advocates in Colorado failed to gather enough signatures for a proposed state statute that would have banned abortions. 

In January, Florida confirmed that advocates had gathered well over the approximately 890,000 signatures required to put a proposed constitutional amendment to recognize a right to abortion on the ballot in that state this coming fall. The proposed amendment says, in part, “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court approved the amendment for placement on the ballot, saying that the amendment does not violate the state’s single subject rules and that the ballot title and summary “fairly inform voters, in clear and unambiguous language, of the chief purpose of the amendment and they are not misleading.” 

In Florida, proposed ballot measures are accompanied by a financial impact statement. On August 21, the Florida Supreme Court cleared the way for a revised statement that the measure’s proponents called “deceptive” and designed to “confuse” voters. The language says the amendment, if passed, “would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida” and costs of related litigation could negatively impact the state budget. The proposed amendment will require 60 percent approval to pass. 

The Maryland legislature voted last year to put a constitutional amendment protecting a right to an abortion on the 2024 ballot. Though abortion is already legal in Maryland, the Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment would enshrine in the Maryland Constitution a right to make decisions to “prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.” A majority of voters would need to vote “yes” for the amendment to be adopted.

In August, Missouri officials certified for the November ballot a proposed amendment that would guarantee the right to an abortion until viability. Abortion is currently banned in Missouri. Abortion-rights groups collected signatures in support of a ballot initiative that, if passed by majority of Missouri voters, would amend the state constitution to include a right to make one’s own decision on reproductive care, including abortion. Last year, the state supreme court held that state officials improperly held up approval of the ballot initiative by disputing — without authority to do so — a state auditor assessment of how much an enacted amendment would cost, thus shortening the time proponents have to gather necessary signatures. About 170,000 signatures were needed by early May to get an initiative on the ballot in Missouri. Proponents said they collected more than two times the number of signatures required.

In September, lawsuits over the initiative pending in Missouri state court included litigation brought by Republican state lawmakers seeking to invalidate the approval of the ballot initiative as well as a lawsuit filed by initiative proponents challenging the state secretary of state’s “ballot language statement” that will be posted at polling places. Proponents said the language, including that an abortion would be allowed “at any time of pregnancy,” was inaccurate and meant to confuse voters. On September 6, a the judge overseeing the case agreed, and ordered the language be rewritten. On September 10, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the proposed amendment would remain on the ballot. 

Montana’s secretary of state’s office confirmed in August that their November ballot will include a proposed amendment that would enshrine that the state’s constitutional right to privacy includes the right to a pre-viability abortion. Previously, Montana’s attorney general blocked a citizen-initiated proposed amendment that would allow people to “make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,” abortion-rights activists sought state supreme court review. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in March that the attorney general had erred in blocking the initiative. In April, the Montana Supreme Court rejected new language drafted by the attorney general, and the court drafted new language that largely tracked to the citizens’ proposal. The approximately 60,000 verified signatures from house districts were due in June, and advocates said they submitted more than 115,000. On July 10, the amendment’s proponents sued the Montana secretary of state claiming she improperly changed the rules for which signatures would be verified and is “blocking the verification” of potentially thousands of signatures. On July 16, the court entered a temporary order requiring counties to resume counting based on the old rules. 

In Nebraska, abortion-rights activists and those who would limit abortion care will put separate ballot initiatives in front of voters in the 2024 election, the state confirmed in August. It’s the first time since Roe was overturned that such competing amendments would be on the ballot, according to the Associated Press. Abortion-rights groups are pushing for a constitutional amendment that would allow abortion up to viability, while the other group seeks to keep in place the current ban on abortion after 12 weeks.  The groups each needed approximately 122,000 signatures; both sides submitted more than 200,000. With both measures on the ballot, the initiative with the most votes would likely be enacted, though a review process to determine if the two initiatives are in conflict is required. 

On September 9, the Nebraska Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the initiatives should remain on the ballot, including claims by a conservative organization that the initiative that would allow abortion up to viability violates the requirement that such ballot measures be about a single-subject, arguing the measure involves abortion to viability, abortion relating to the pregnant person’s health, and state regulation of abortion. On September 13, the supreme court ruled the viability-related amendment “has a singleness of subject” and that both measures are eligible for the ballot. 

In Nevada, abortion-rights advocates filed proposed language with the secretary of state in September for a state constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom. Anti-abortion advocates sued over the language of the amendment, and a state district court judge held that it did not meet the requirement that it involve only a “single subject.” Though the Nevada Supreme Court overturned that decision in April, proponents of the amendment drafted a new amendment with narrower language and said they gathered nearly double the about 100,000 signatures required. At the end of June, the Nevada Secretary of State certified the amendment to appear on the ballot. The amendment would protect abortion up to fetal viability. Abortion is currently legal in Nevada up to 24 weeks, which is also roughly fetal viability, but an amendment would add additional protection, as the constitution is more difficult to change than state law. 

Nevada has an unusual process to approve a constitutional amendment: voters must vote in favor of any change in two consecutive election cycles before the amendment can become part of the constitution. So even with the proposed amendment protecting abortion right on the ballot in 2024, it would need to be approved both this year and in 2026 in order to be adopted.

The New York legislature voted in both 2022 and 2023 in favor of an abortion-related amendment, as required by state procedure to get a constitutional amendment on New Yorkers’ ballots. The constitutional amendment, referred to as the Equal Rights Amendment, would prohibit the denial of rights to an individual based on their “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” A simple majority of votes is required for the amendment to pass. In June, a New York appeals court ruled the initiative could be on the ballot, overturning a lower court’s finding that legislators made a procedural error in seeking approval of the language of the amendment and that it could not appear on the ballot. The state high court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. 

South Dakota’s proposed constitutional amendment, which was approved for the 2024 ballot in May, will allow abortion in the first trimester for any reason; in the second trimester, the procedure would only be allowed to protect the health of the pregnant person. Activists in favor of the amendment submitted about 46,000 valid signatures, more than 10,000 than were necessary. Because the amendment does not protect a general right to an abortion after the first trimester, Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights organizations have not yet said if they will support the amendment, but did say they are “heartened by the enthusiasm” South Dakota voters showed for securing abortion rights. In June, a South Dakota anti-abortion group filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the initiative from the ballot and claiming, in part, that errors were made in the signature-collection process. A group advocating for the initiative called the lawsuit, “a last-ditch effort to undermine the democratic process.”  On August 2, the South Dakota Supreme Court said a lower court was wrong to dismiss the lawsuit because of the form it was brought in, but the state high court did not opine on the underlying merits and refused to expedite the case.

States Where an Abortion-Related Amendment Was Attempted, But Will Not Be on the Ballot 

In late August, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the state’s rejection of the petition to include an abortion-related amendment on that state’s ballot. The court agreed with the Arkansas secretary of state that the amendment’s proponents had failed to submit proper paperwork related to people paid to gather signatures in favor of the amendment. Such signature gathering is legal; the issue was over filing requirements related to them. Without including the signatures gathered by paid canvassers, the group was about 3,000 signatures short of the approximately 90,000 required to place the amendment on the ballot. The court’s chief justice dissented, saying the secretary of state should have been required to count all the signatures, then allow for a cure period if necessary.

A state “trigger law” made abortion illegal in Arkansas after Roe v. Wade was overturned. A proposed amendment would have prevented the state from restricting abortion up to 18 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions beyond that point in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, or where the pregnant person’s health is threatened. The Arkansas attorney general certified the proposed amendment’s language in January. Advocates submitted just over 100,000 signatures, though some of those were collected by the paid canvassers. On July 10, the Arkansas secretary of state sent the group behind the amendment a letter rejecting their submission, saying they had failed to provide required information regarding paid canvassers and thousands of signatures would not be accepted, putting them below the required signature threshold. On July 16, proponents of the amendment sued the secretary of state in the state’s supreme court to overturn the rejection, claiming that they had submitted the proper paperwork and, even if not, have a right to correct “any perceived failure.” They also alleged that the secretary has taken the position in other cases that signatures should be counted regardless of compliance and that he failed to perform an initial count of all signatures as required by law. 

In 2021, the Iowa legislature voted in favor of a constitutional amendment stating that, the “constitution does not recognize, grant, or secure a right to abortion or require the public funding of abortion.” For the amendment to become part of the state constitution, the legislature needed to pass the amendment again in its 2023–2024 session. The session ended without the legislature approving the measure.

Maine lawmakers introduced the Maine Right to Personal Reproductive Autonomy Amendment in the 2023–2024 legislative session to enshrine a state constitutional right to an abortion. In April, it failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority vote in the Maine House, so it will not appear on Maine’s 2024 ballots.

Democratic legislators in Minnesota are weighing whether to attempt to put a legislatively driven constitutional amendment to protect abortion on the ballot in 2026. But efforts this year to expand the state’s Equal Rights Amendment to include protections for reproductive care failed. That amendment will not be on the 2024 ballot. Abortion is currently legal in Minnesota, and the goal of either amendment would be to add an additional layer of abortion-rights protections.

•  •  •

The process to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot is a rocky and expensive one, making it difficult to predict how many states will have abortion-related measures on the ballot in 2024. But because access to abortion varies significantly across the country, state constitutional amendments protecting the right to reproductive care, if approved, would not only bring a level of permanence to abortion rights in those states, but also help clarify the availability of abortion access nationwide.

The political implications also go beyond abortion. Both parties hope proposed abortion amendments will increase turnout for their respective bases, boosting chances of prevailing not only in the presidential election, but in elections up and down the ballot.

Erin Geiger Smith is a writer and editor at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Betsy Zalinski is a student at New York University and a former intern at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Suggested Citation: Erin Geiger Smith & Betsy Zalinski, Where Abortion Rights Could Be on the Ballot in 2024, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Feb. 8, 2024, updated June 7, 2024), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/where-abortion-rights-could-be-ballot-2024.