The People Have Spoken: Why Post-Vote Legal Battles Threaten Democracy and Reproductive Freedom

The Democratic Will Affirmed

In November 2024, voters in Arizona and Missouri delivered a powerful message through ballot initiatives, overwhelmingly striking down near-total abortion bans in their states. Arizona voters approved constitutional protection for abortion access up to fetal viability by a significant margin, with Missouri voters following suit in a historic demonstration of democratic will. These victories represented more than just policy changes—they were profound affirmations of reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy directly expressed through the democratic process.

Yet, as the article reveals, Election Day victories marked only the beginning of the struggle. Immediately following these democratic triumphs, Republican-led legislatures and state officials launched protracted legal battles to undermine and circumvent the clear will of the people. In Arizona, the trial over abortion restrictions concluded recently with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como hearing arguments about preserving laws around medication abortion prescribing, waiting periods, and bans on abortions for fetal abnormalities. Meanwhile, Missouri’s similar trial concludes on January 26th, with state officials seeking to preserve over a dozen abortion restrictions despite the constitutional amendment passed by voters.

The Legal Landscape and TRAP Laws

Both states operate under what reproductive rights advocates term Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, legislation passed before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022. These laws impose additional regulations on abortion clinics beyond standard medical requirements, including specific facility size mandates, transfer agreement requirements, and admitting privileges at local hospitals within 30 miles. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 25 states still maintain such laws as of December, creating significant barriers to access even where abortion remains legal.

State officials typically argue these extra parameters enhance safety, but the medical evidence contradicts this justification. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists confirms that abortion procedures maintain a strong safety record under existing medical requirements and are statistically safer than childbirth. Studies demonstrate that the risk of maternal death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk associated with abortion procedures.

Additional laws specifically designed to discourage or frustrate those seeking abortion care include mandatory vaginal exams, waiting periods, and requirements that the same physician must see medication abortion patients over two subsequent visits. Many of these laws were passed over decades and contributed to driving abortion providers away from states like Missouri, creating access deserts even where abortion remains technically legal.

The Democratic Crisis Unfolding

What we are witnessing represents nothing less than a crisis of democratic governance. When citizens participate in the democratic process, follow established procedures, and achieve clear electoral victories, they have every right to expect their will to be implemented. The concerted efforts by Republican legislators and state officials to undermine these democratic outcomes through legal technicalities and obstructionist tactics constitute a fundamental breach of democratic principles.

Amy Myrick, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, perfectly captures this anti-democratic reality: “Ballot measures are not the silver bullet. We need a lot of follow-up to make these rights real. And the attempts to keep these restrictions after the voters have spoken are blatantly anti-democratic, but they’re still happening.” This statement should alarm every American who values democratic governance and constitutional rights.

The situation in Missouri particularly illustrates this democratic breakdown. Despite voters overturning the abortion ban, the Republican supermajority legislature is simultaneously putting a countermeasure on the November ballot to reinstate the abortion ban, paired with a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. This represents not just opposition to reproductive rights but active defiance of democratic outcomes—a pattern that threatens the very foundations of representative government.

Constitutional Rights Versus Political Obstruction

The legal battles unfolding in Arizona and Missouri fundamentally concern whether constitutional rights, once established through democratic processes, can be rendered meaningless through technical obstruction. As Prachi Dave, senior managing legal and policy director at If/When/How, explains: “Because constitutional amendments don’t overturn conflicting laws, people can still experience injuries under these laws. For example, if a waiting period is interfering with my ability to access the care I am guaranteed under the newly passed amendment, then I would ask a judge to affirm that the law is getting in the way of my right.”

This creates a situation where citizens must essentially litigate their rights into practical existence—a burdensome and often prohibitive process that particularly affects marginalized communities. The Michigan precedent, where a judge ruled in May that a mandatory waiting period was unconstitutional after voters approved a reproductive rights initiative, offers hope but also highlights the additional hurdles citizens must overcome to realize their democratically established rights.

Wendy Heipt, attorney for Legal Voice, notes another complicating factor: even if laws are ruled unconstitutional, they may require relitigation because previous unconstitutional rulings relied on Roe v. Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned nearly four years ago. This legal uncertainty creates additional barriers and uncertainties for both providers and patients seeking to exercise their rights.

The Broader Implications for Democracy

The patterns emerging in Arizona and Missouri have profound implications beyond reproductive rights. They represent a dangerous precedent where elected officials feel empowered to openly defy clear democratic outcomes through legal technicalities and procedural obstruction. When citizens participate in ballot initiatives—often the most direct form of democracy—they reasonably expect their decisions to be implemented rather than subjected to endless legal challenges and legislative countermeasures.

This assault on democratic processes particularly harms vulnerable populations. As the Missouri Independent reports, even though Missourians overturned the ban, abortion care remains difficult to obtain, forcing many to leave the state for care. This creates a two-tier system where those with resources can access care while others face insurmountable barriers—precisely the outcome voters sought to prevent.

The Idaho situation further illustrates the democratic crisis. As Melanie Folwell, lead organizer of the reproductive rights initiative in Idaho, explains, their initiative differs because Idaho cannot submit constitutional amendments—only proposed state laws—for ballot consideration. This makes any new law more vulnerable to legal challenges and legislative override, creating additional democratic hurdles for citizens seeking to protect their rights.

Standing for Democratic Principles

As someone deeply committed to democracy, freedom, and constitutional rights, I find these developments profoundly disturbing. The deliberate obstruction of democratically established rights represents not just policy disagreement but active contempt for democratic processes and constitutional governance. When citizens follow established procedures, debate issues openly, and vote their conscience, their decisions must be respected—not subjected to endless legal technicalities and legislative countermeasures.

Reproductive freedom represents a fundamental human right involving bodily autonomy, medical privacy, and personal liberty—all values deeply embedded in our constitutional tradition. The attempt to override democratic outcomes on these fundamental rights should alarm every American regardless of their position on abortion itself. The principle that voters’ decisions should be respected transcends any particular policy debate.

We must recognize these legal battles as what they are: attacks on democracy itself. The people have spoken through established democratic processes, and their will must be implemented without obstruction or technical evasion. Anything less represents a betrayal of democratic principles and constitutional governance.

The Path Forward

The outcomes in Arizona and Missouri will set crucial precedents for how other states handle similar democratic expressions of will. As Folwell notes, “There are things to learn from every one of the states that have reproductive access on the ballot, which is 17 states at this point. It is always instructive for us to see what plays out in that state’s legislature, what plays out with their courts.”

We must support robust legal defenses of democratically established rights while simultaneously advocating for stronger democratic protections against legislative override and procedural obstruction. Citizens who participate in ballot initiatives deserve certainty that their decisions will be implemented rather than subjected to endless challenges.

Most importantly, we must reaffirm our commitment to democratic principles and constitutional governance. When voters speak through established democratic processes, their voice must be respected—not circumvented through legal technicalities, legislative countermeasures, or procedural obstruction. The future of both reproductive freedom and democratic governance depends on upholding this fundamental principle.