Proposal 3, arguably the top driver for many voters who headed to the polls today, passed today.

The proposal inscribes the right to an abortion, and other reproductive issues, into the Michigan Constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized the practice nationally. It was projected by Mark Grebner of Practical Political Consultants to draw between 10,000 and 20,000 new young female voters.

“Michigan, we made it happen! Your votes helped #RestoreRoe and protect #ReproductiveFreedom for generations to co come. Thank you to everyone who volunteered, hosted a yard sign, and voted for #Proposal3 this election!” reads the tweet from Reproductive Freedom For All, the group that spearheaded Proposal 3.

Reproductive Freedom for All was already putting the ballot initiative together before the ruling in the Dobbs decision. Weeks later, the participation level in the drive to collect signatures for the proposal revealed a spike in interest after Roe v. Wade was overturned.

The ballot proposal effort collected the highest number of signatures in Michigan history.

The road to the finish line wasn’t easy, as a coalition spearheaded by the Catholic church and Right to Life spent nearly $25.6 in advertising to abort it at the ballot box.

Reproductive Freedom for All was able to nearly match the advertising spending with nearly $22 million, however, the abortion backers also had spent more on digital advertising, according to Ad Impact.

The pro side used the message that the proposal would bring Michigan’s abortion regulations to where they were prior to the Roe decision. The strategy was to convince the majority of Michiganders, who support abortion in some form according to polling, that a “yes” vote was the only way to prevent back-alley abortions.

The anti-side said the overly broad language would make Michigan’s abortion law the most expansive in the country. It also argued that the proposal would eliminate accepted regulations such as informed consent and parental consent.

The anti-side also made the argument that the language of Proposal 3 was “too confusing,” which the pro-side resented.

Along with the monetary opposition, Prop 3 faced challenges at the Board of Canvassers with lawyers arguing the constitutional measure should not be allowed to be granted petition because a union printing logo did not meet the rules, which resulted in a deadlock.

The ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court overturned the deadlock and said the printer’s marks on a petition are not considered part of the text contained in the petition language.

The next opposition challenge was over missing spaces, a piece that made it into the advertising against it, which caused a deadlock.

The groups made it to the Michigan Supreme Court a second time, where the Board of State Canvassers was ordered to approve the measure for the ballot.  Prop 3 was given the go-ahead by the Canvassers the final day before ballots were set and printed.

This story courtesy of MIRS, a Lansing-based news and information service.