SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA 

 

ARIZONA RIGHT TO LIFE, ) Arizona Supreme Court 

 ) No. CV-24-0180-AP/EL 

 Plaintiff/Appellant, ) 

 ) Maricopa County 

 v. ) Superior Court 

 ) No. CV2024-019610 

ADRIAN FONTES, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants/Appellees. ) 

 ) 

__________________________________) FILED 08/20/2024 

DECISION ORDER

The Court en banc has considered the briefs and authorities in 

this expedited election appeal concerning the “Arizona Abortion 

Access Act” (the “Initiative”), serial number I-05-2024, a ballot 

initiative to adopt an amendment to the Arizona Constitution 

establishing a fundamental right to abortion in the Arizona 

Constitution and preventing the State from denying, restricting, or 

interfering with this right in specific circumstances. The superior 

court concluded that the 200-word description (the “Description”) 

accurately described the Initiative under A.R.S. § 19-102(A) and 

denied Plaintiff/Appellant’s request to enjoin the Secretary of State 

from including the Initiative on the 2024 general election ballot. 

Plaintiff/Appellant appealed.

As this Court has noted in a previous case concerning abortion, 

our resolution of this appeal “does not rest on the justices’ morals 

or public policy views regarding abortion.” Planned Parenthood 

Ariz., Inc. v. Mayes, 257 Ariz. 110, 111 ¶ 1 (2024). Rather, our 

task is to apply the law governing initiative descriptions fairly and 
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0180-AP/EL

Page 2 of 5

impartially in the context of the people’s exercise of the 

legislative power through the initiative. See League of Ariz. Cities 

& Towns v. Brewer, 213 Ariz. 557, 559–60 ¶¶ 8–10 (2006). 

Therefore, upon consideration,

The Court unanimously concurs in the superior court’s analysis 

and conclusion. A.R.S. § 19-102(A) requires an initiative petition 

to “[i]nsert a description of not more than two hundred words of the 

principal provisions of the proposed measure or constitutional 

amendment.” The superior court was required to disqualify the 

Initiative from the ballot only if the Description either (1) 

“omitted a ‘principal provision’ of the measure” or (2) failed to 

accurately communicate the principal provisions’ general objectives. 

Molera v. Hobbs, 250 Ariz. 13, 19 ¶¶ 8, 10 (2020) (“Molera II”). 

Plaintiff/Appellant does not argue that the Description omits a 

principal provision. Instead, it challenges the Description’s 

accuracy in describing these provisions.

We have noted that “[r]easonable people can differ about the 

best way to describe a principal provision, but a court should not 

enmesh itself in such quarrels.” Id. at 20 ¶ 11. A 200-word 

description complies with § 19-102(A) if it “would alert a reasonable 

person to the principal provisions’ general objectives.” Id. A 

description is deficient if it “either communicates objectively false 

or misleading information or obscures the principal provisions’ basic 

thrust.” Id. ¶ 13.
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0180-AP/EL

Page 3 of 5

 The principal provisions of the Initiative are (1) the 

establishment of a fundamental right to abortion under the Arizona 

Constitution; (2) the scope of that fundamental right, before and 

after fetal viability; and (3) the preclusion of the State from 

penalizing a person for assisting another to exercise that right. 

The Description explains each of these provisions and the tests that 

would apply to restrictions upon that right. Nothing in the 

Description “either communicates objectively false or misleading 

information or obscures the principal provisions’ basic thrust,” in 

violation of § 19-102(A). See id.

We reject Plaintiff/Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. The 

Description is not required to explain the Initiative’s impact on 

existing abortion laws or regulations. See Molera II, 250 Ariz. 

at 21 ¶ 20. Moreover, a reasonable person would necessarily 

understand that existing laws that fail the prescribed tests would be 

invalid rather than continue in effect. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 36-2322 

(eff. Sept. 24, 2024) (existing law prohibiting elective abortions 

after fifteen weeks).

Similarly, a reasonable person would assume that the “health 

care provider” tasked with determining fetal viability would 

ordinarily be the pregnant woman’s own treating physician, who is, by 

virtue of such person’s profession, guided by ethical codes and 

presumably acts in good faith to preserve her health.

Plaintiff/Appellant also argues that the Initiative itself is 
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0180-AP/EL

Page 4 of 5

misleading. But that is not the issue before us under § 19-102(A). 

”[T]he proper place to argue about the potential impact of an 

initiative is in the political arena, in speeches, newspaper 

articles, advertisements and other forums.” Tilson v. Mofford, 153 

Ariz. 468, 473 (1987); see also Molera II, 250 Ariz. at 22 ¶ 23. We 

find that principle dispositive of most of the claims at issue in 

this case.

IT IS ORDERED affirming the superior court’s judgment denying 

injunctive relief. The Secretary of State will proceed under Title 

19, Arizona Revised Statutes, to include the Initiative in the 

general election publicity pamphlet and to place it on the general 

election ballot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the request by Defendant/Appellee

Arizona for Abortion Access for taxable costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341 

and 12-342.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to issue the mandate 

forthwith.1

DATED this 20th day of August, 2024.

____________/s/_______________

ANN A. SCOTT TIMMER

Chief Justice

1 Justice Bolick is recused, and the Honorable John Pelander, Justice 

(Retired) of the Arizona Supreme Court, was designated to sit on the 

case pursuant to article 6, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0180-AP/EL

Page 5 of 5

TO:

Timothy A LaSota

Jennifer Wright

Karen J Hartman-Tellez

Kara Karlson

Kyle R Cummings

D Andrew Gaona

Austin C Yost

Andrew Fox

Hon. Melissa Iyer Julian

Hon. Jeff Fine

Alberto Rodriguez

Hon. John Pelander

Malvika A Sinha

Daniel J Adelman

Nicholas Ansel

Karin Aldama

Skye L. Perryman

Carrie Y. Flaxman

Molly A. Meegan

Alexander Michael Del Rey Kolodin

Veronica Lucero

Nathan J Fidel

Jim Davy

Joshua Rosenthal

Jordan Phillips

blc