For the first time in more than 30 years, abortion will be on the ballot for Nevada voters through a question to establish a state constitutional right to an abortion.

In 1990, Nevadans overwhelmingly approved a referendum that legalized abortion through 24 weeks into a pregnancy, a process that ensured any changes to the law would have to be done through the ballot. This Silver State law came into new focus after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, ending federal protections for abortion and allowing Republican-led states to outlaw the procedure.

The overturning of Roe has prompted a push by Democrats to shore up abortion rights state by state through ballot questions, and voters in 10 states will vote in November whether to bolster abortion protections.

Read below for more details on the ballot question, its implications and how we got to this point.

Summary of what it does: The proposed amendment to the state Constitution would protect the right to an abortion until fetal viability, which is generally considered about 23 or 24 weeks, or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient. 

Even though these protections are essentially the same as what is legal under Nevada law, a state constitutional right to an abortion would be harder to overturn.

Because this is the first time that voters will weigh in on the ballot question, it must also be approved in the 2026 election for the Constitution to be amended.

How did we get here?: Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, the group behind the ballot initiative, initially began its efforts to qualify an abortion rights question last September through a broader constitutional amendment. In addition to a constitutional right to an abortion, this proposal would have covered procedures such as vasectomies as well as infertility and prenatal care.

In October, a new PAC called the Coalition for Parents and Children sued to block the effort. The lawsuit said the petition violated the single-subject rule for constitutional amendments and would carry an unfunded mandate “to fund a board to review whether abortions or reproductive services were performed pursuant to standard of care.”

In November, Carson City District Court Judge James Russell ruled that the initiative violated the single-subject rule and carried an unfunded mandate, prohibiting supporters from gathering signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court and pivoted to a more narrowly tailored ballot question solely focused on abortion rights. This question faced another legal challenge on the grounds that it misled voters because abortion is already legal, but it received approval from Russell, a decision that has also been appealed and is still pending before the state Supreme Court. 

In April, the state Supreme Court overturned Russell’s dismissal of the broader abortion rights ballot question. But because petition supporters were prohibited from gathering signatures after the judge’s order, they moved forward on the narrower question on abortion.

In June, the abortion question qualified for the ballot after county election officials verified more than 127,000 signatures in support of the initiative.

The Legislature also passed its own constitutional amendment last year to guarantee “a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” The measure must be approved again in the 2025 legislative session to qualify for the 2026 general election ballot.

What have other states done?: Abortion-related ballot questions will appear on ballots in nine other states this year.

All of these questions would protect abortion access, except for Nebraska, where signatures have been submitted for two measures: one to protect abortion access and another to curtail it.

Pro-abortion ballot efforts have seen success across the country since Roe was overturned. Four states — California, Michigan, Ohio and Vermont — have established constitutional rights to reproductive freedom. In Kansas and Kentucky, voters also rejected anti-abortion questions.

The arguments in favor: Supporters of the ballot initiative say every step should be taken to shore up abortion rights after Roe was overturned.

Thanks to the 1990 referendum, the right to an abortion through 24 weeks into a pregnancy can only be overturned by a one-time majority vote of the people. However, if the right is enshrined in the state Constitution, it would require majority votes in two consecutive elections, or the passage of legislation in two straight sessions, followed by a one-time majority vote of the people.

Supporters have also argued the ballot initiative gives greater protections to doctors who provide abortions and keeps families in charge of their health care decisions, rather than politicians.

The arguments against: Opponents of the initiative — including the anti-abortion group Nevada Right to Life — have argued that it misleads voters by not disclosing that approving the question would not change the state of abortion rights in Nevada. 

Opponents have argued it would cost taxpayer funds and make the state’s abortion laws more complicated.

Primary funders: Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom has raised more than $4.6 million as of the end of June, much of which came from “dark money” groups, which are nonprofits that do not have to disclose their donors because they are not primarily political groups.

The Nevada Alliance, a prominent Nevada-based dark money group, has given more than $1 million to the group. Two national dark money heavyweights, the Tides Foundation and Sixteen Thirty Fund, also gave more than $1 million combined to support the ballot question. 

Think Big America, a nonprofit connected to Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, has also given more than $1 million to back the effort.

Guardians of the Young, a PAC opposing the ballot initiative, was registered in August and has not reported any money raised.  

Financial impact: Both sides disagree about the financial impact.

The legal challenges to the initiative have argued that the question would create an unfunded mandate, which are provisions that implicitly require a funding source without such money being allocated. The latest appeal to the state Supreme Court argued that the state would be forced to cover the costs of abortions if the initiative passes because failing to do so would infringe on a person’s constitutional rights.

Supporters of the initiative have said this argument “is entirely based on a wildly speculative argument regarding abortion-related funding.” 

The Legislature’s Fiscal Analysis Division said the financial impact “cannot be determined with reasonable degree of certainty.” This is because the passage of the amendment may result in  legislation changes to comply with the amendment’s provisions, but it is unclear which current laws may have to be changed.