“RFFA is heading to the Michigan Supreme Court to ask that the Board of State Canvassers do their jobs,” the statement said. “The board is disenfranchising hundreds of voters who want to restore Roe and keep in place the reproductive rights we’ve had in Michigan for the last 50 years.”

The proposal would guarantee the right to have an abortion in the state, replacing a 1931 ban on abortions currently on the books. The ban has been blocked from enforcement by a Michigan judge since early August. A signature drive by the Michigan ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice interest groups collected over 700,000 signatures for the proposal.

The state Board of Canvassers, a four-person group split evenly by party lines, still has to approve the proposal. The board deadlocked on party lines, with Republicans citing formatting issues and legibility as major reasons to not include the proposal on the ballot in November. 

The opposition to the proposal was spearheaded by Citizens to Support MI Women and Children, a pro-life coalition made up of several anti-abortion organizations from around the state. Spokesperson Christen Pollo said that the proposed amendment is “gibberish” and that it would pose a threat to the integrity of the state constitution.

“The reality is that there's a decision before the Supreme Court in our state on whether or not we should allow 60 mistakes to be put in the state constitution forever,” Pollo said. “It would be unprecedented for something with this many errors to go on the ballot, so we are calling on the Supreme Court to do the right thing.” 

The mistakes Pollo cited, which were a topic of discussion during the Board of Canvassers meeting, consist of issues regarding font size and spacing between words. Opposition lawyers said in testimony that the proposal was made unintelligible by formatting issues and was unfit to be added to the state constitution. 

Lawyers representing Reproductive Freedom for All argued that the petition met all the requirements set by the state for ballot proposals and that while formatting issues may have been present, the proposal was presented in its entirety to the state and to citizens.

"There's not a single letter missing," said attorney Steve Liedel to the board. 

The Michigan Supreme Court, which has a narrow Democratic majority, has yet to announce a date to hear the appeal.