Amarillo voters reject abortion “travel ban,” a rare rebuke of anti-abortion movement in Texas

Sign up for the We the Texans newsletter to receive twice-monthly updates on our year-long initiative dedicated to boosting civic engagement and chronicling how democracy is experienced in Texas.

LUBBOCK — Amarillo voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected a proposal that would have effectively made it illegal to use local streets and highways to obtain an out-of-state abortion — a stunning rebuke in a deeply conservative portion of the state for anti-abortion advocates that first proposed the idea.

The proposal, known as Proposition A, lost by about 20 percentage points Tuesday night, according to unofficial votes.

Amarillo became the first Texas city to reject an anti-abortion ordinance placed on a citywide ballot.

The vote shuts the door on the yearlong debate in Amarillo, which began when city leaders hesitated to pass the ordinance after several conservative cities and counties passed similar laws. The issue upended the Panhandle capital, home to more than 203,000 people. Residents waited hours to voice their opinions on the ordinance at tense city council meetings, digital billboards in favor and against illuminated roads, and both sides held extensive campaigns to sway undecided or uninformed voters.

Abortion activists — who called the ordinance unconstitutional and far-reaching — celebrated the rare win Tuesday night.

Lindsay London, co-founder of the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance, a local advocacy group that led the opposition against the ordinance, said abortion is not a partisan issue, and the results show that.

“It’s something that touches all our lives, and we reject extremist government overreach,” London said. “Particularly when it comes to penalizing support for travel, it violates our constitutional rights.”

London said there’s a possibility the ordinance could pop up again in the future — when a new city council is voted in.

“So we are going to take a breath, rest, and prepare for whatever’s to come next,” London said.

Supporters promoted the ordinance as a way to stop “abortion trafficking.” Mark Lee Dickson, the activist from East Texas behind the measure, defined the term as the act of helping any pregnant woman cross state lines to end her pregnancy or other forms of support.

Dickson, who led the push for the proposal in Amarillo and other cities and counties, remained optimistic late Tuesday. In a text message to the Tribune, Dickson said, “We do not have the results yet.”

The crux of the debate was how the law would be enforced. Amarillo residents would have been able to sue another person for violating the ordinance, with awards beginning at $10,000. Some said it pits neighbor against neighbor. Tom Scherlen, a city council member who is also Republican, drew similarities to how Nazis enforced their laws in World War II. People would have been accused of violating it for several reasons, including by providing transportation, donating to abortion fund networks anywhere, offering any information that would lead to an abortion regardless of where the person giving instructions is located, or donating to someone who was sued under the ordinance. Residents would have also been able to sue any person or entity who “intends” to violate the ordinance.

Amarillo’s vote is one of few times where Texas voters had a say on abortion since Roe v. Wade was overturned. State law rarely allows for direct democracy on such issues except at the city level.

The council, led by Mayor Cole Stanley, publicly doubted if they have the jurisdiction to enact a far-reaching ordinance such as this, which he said pushes their power more than the other ordinances passed by Conservative cities and counties in Texas.

Stanley could not be reached for comment.

After the Amarillo City Council balked at passing the ordinance last year, residents began collecting signatures to petition to have the council consider the measure, and to place it on a local ballot if it wasn’t passed by the council. The council rejected both the original ordinance and an amended version, leading the petitioning committee to seek the ballot measure.

According to KFF, a nonpartisan nonprofit that focuses on health policy, abortion was on the ballot in 10 states this election cycle. In nine of those states, ballot measures seek to protect abortion access while Nebraska has two measures — one to protect abortion rights and one to curtail abortion after the first trimester except for medical emergencies or if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.