California Proposition 9, Marsy's Law (2008)
- 1 Election results
- 2 Provisions of Proposition 9
- 3 Supporters of Proposition 9 petition
- 4 Opposition to Proposition 9 petition
- 5 Newspaper endorsements
- 6 Post-election federal lawsuit
- 7 External links
- 8 References
- 9 Additional reading
|California Proposition 9|
Provisions of Proposition 9
The California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is charged with providing neutral analyses of the provisions of proposed California propositions. According to the LAO, the provisions of Proposition 9 include:
- Provisions requiring the payment of restitution to victims.
- Any funds collected by a court, or law enforcement agencies, from a person ordered to pay restitution would go to pay that restitution first, in effect prioritizing those payments over other fines and obligations an offender may legally owe.
- Provisions regarding the notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings.
- Provisions that expand victims' legal rights.
- Provisions that affect how parole is granted and revoked; this includes lengthening the parole hearing wait for lifers from five to 15 years.
- Limits the use of state-paid defense lawyers in revocation proceedings to indigent offenders.
Estimated fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following summary of Prop. 9's estimated costs:
- Unknown potential increases in state prison and county jail operating costs due to provisions restricting early release of inmates.
- To the extent that any such costs were incurred, they could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
- A potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars for the administration of parole reviews and revocations if the changes related to parole revocation procedures are not overturned by potential legal challenges.
Supporters of Proposition 9 petition
The initiative petition was sponsored by Henry Nicholas and his family. Nicholas, who donated $4,845,000.00 to the campaign to put Marsy's Law on the ballot, stepped away from active support of the Marsy's Law campaign when a criminal indictment on drug and securities offenses was unsealed in June 2008 so as not to serve as a distraction during the campaign. ,
Other backers of Proposition 9 are the California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and Crime Victims United of California.
Arguments in favor of Prop. 9 petition
Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Proposition 9 include:
- Proposition 9 would save money because under the current system, taxpayers are spending money to fund hearings for criminals who have little chance of release. For example, supporters of Prop 9 argue, "'Helter Skelter' inmates Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten, followers of Charles Manson, convicted of multiple brutal murders, have had 38 parole hearings in 30 years. That’s 38 times the families involved have been forced to relive the painful crime and pay their own expenses to attend the hearing, plus 38 hearings that taxpayers have had to subsidize."
- The rights of victims are important.
- Parole judges could increase the number of years between parole hearings typically to 15 years, saving money.
Donors supporting Marsy's Law
As of September 24, campaign finance statements show one donor:
Dr. Nicholas shows under Campaign Finance that his occupation is Business Management.
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
As an initiated constitutional amendment, 694,354 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 9 for the ballot.
The signature-gathering drive to qualify Proposition 9 for the ballot was managed by Bader & Associates, Inc., a petition management company owned by Tom Bader and Joy Bader, at a cost of $2,258,034.00.
Opposition to Proposition 9 petition
Notable opponents included:
- the California Democratic Party
- the California Professional Firefighters
- the California Teachers Association
- California Church IMPACT
- the Los Angeles Times
- the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
- the American Friends Service Committee Pacific Mountain Region
Arguments against Prop. 9 petition
Notable arguments that were made against Proposition 9 included:
- Voters already approved many components of Prop. 9 when they passed California Proposition 8 (1982), including the requirements that victims be notified of critical points in an offender’s legal process as well as the rights for victims to be heard throughout the legal process.
- Prop. 9 amounts to political grandstanding without really changing any significant problems in the criminal justice system.
- The provision in Prop. 9 to stop early release of criminals could end up costing the taxpayer in the "hundreds of millions"
- The annual parole rate for those convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter has been less than 1% of those eligible for parole for the last twenty years. Opponents of Prop. 9 say this means that the taxpayers would spend a lot of money with minimal resulting changes, since at most Prop. 9 would affect early parole of 1% of the most violent criminal population.
- Money spent enforcing the provisions of Prop. 9 won't be available for other important government programs.
Donors to opposition campaign
Donors to the opposition group included:
- California Teachers Association, $72,805.
- California Federation of Teachers, $100,000.
- California State Council of Service Employees PAC, $247,805.
- The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, $25,000.
Editorial boards opposed
The Los Angeles Times encourages a "no" vote on 9, saying, "If the concern is protection of families from further victimization, as proponents claim, that goal can be met without granting families a new and inappropriate role in prosecutions."
Other editorial boards opposed:
Editorial boards in favor
Post-election federal lawsuit
On March 26, 2009, a federal judge blocked part of the measure, arguing that the proposition did not nullify the administration's settlement of the class-action inmate rights lawsuit. The judge had previously issued a stay on a portion of the measure after the November election. 
However, in March 2010, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned the lower court ruling and said that Proposition 9's provision that legal counsel must be provided by the state only in particularly complex cases can stand.
Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation said of the March 2010 decision, "Today's decision makes it clear that a judge's order to grant more rights to parolees than constitutionally required does not trump a state constitutional amendment adopted by the people." Scheidegger helped draft Proposition 9.
Federal appellate judges John T. Noonan, Michael Daly Hawkins and Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote the decision upholding Proposition 9. Their decision says:
- "Because the district court made no express determination that any aspect of the California parole revocation procedures, as modified by Proposition 9, violated constitutional rights, or that the injunction was necessary to remedy a constitutional violation, we vacate and remand the March 2009 order for the district court to make that determination and reconcile the injunction with California law as expressed in Proposition 9."
- California Voter's Guide to Proposition 9
- Text of initiative as amended
- Webside of Bader & Associates, Inc.
- Signature validation progress report
- Proposition 9 would give crime victims a stronger voice, but critics say it could violate inmates' rights, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2008
- Number nine, number nine, number nine, Los Angeles Times, June 6, 2008
- Legislative Analyst's Office Summary of Provisions and Fiscal Impact
- CaliforniaPropositions.org Prop 9 information page
- Institute of Governmental Studies Hot Topic: Proposition 9
- No on Prop. 9 campaign website
- Vote No on 9 grassroots website
- Props. 6 and 9 Reader, Harvard Law School blog
- Official election results
- Los Angeles Times, "California's Propositions", September 21, 2008
- Election results from the Secretary of State for Proposition 12
- Ballot analysis from the California Legislative Analyst's Office
- Sacramento Bee, "2008 Ballot Watch: Proposition 9: Victims' rights, prisoner releases", October 8, 2008
- Los Angeles Times, The Two Nicholases, June 11, 2008.
- Campaign donation from Nicholas to Marsy's Law committee
- Arguments in favor of Prop 9 from the California voters guide
- Donors to Proposition 8
- News 10, "Marsy's Law" Seeks New Rights For Crime Victims
- Sacramento Bee, Signatures submitted for victims' ballot measure, April 28, 2008
- Campaign expenditure details
- Registration information for the No on 6 & 9 committee
- Arguments against Prop. 9 from the California voter's guide
- Record of donations to the campaign opposing Proposition 9
- Los Angeles Times, "No on Proposition 9", September 26, 2008
- Pasadena Star News, "Vote 'no' on props. 6 and 9", October 6, 2008
- Press Democrat, "Wrong Way," September 8, 2008
- Press Enterprise, "No on 9," September 12, 2008
- Tracy Press, "Proposition 9 has victims as a concern, but it would put too much burden on our prison system if it passes," September 23, 2008.
- San Diego Union Tribune, "No on Prop 9: Measure is poorly drafted and wrongheaded," September 25, 2008
- Orange County Register, "California Prop. 9 Editorial: Unnecessary tinkering with constitution," October 2, 2008
- Sacramento Bee, "Proposition 9", October 9, 2008
- San Francisco Chronicle, "Props. 6 and 9 are budget busters," October 9, 2008.
- Bakersfield Californian, "Ballot-box budgeting: Vote NO on Props 6 and 9," October 9, 2008
- La Opinion, "Two Measures to Reject," October 12, 2008
- Fresno Bee, "Vote 'no' on Proposition 9, an ill-considered crime victims bill," October 13, 2008.
- Woodland Daily Democrat, "Voters should turn down Props. 5, 6, and 9", October 14, 2008.
- San Jose Mercury News, "Editorial: Proposition 9 would increase prison costs; vote no," October 14, 2008.
- Chico Enterprise-Record, "Flawed measures should be rejected," October 16, 2008.
- Stockton Record, "Proposition 9 - No," October 16, 2008.
- New York Times, "Fiscal Disaster in California," October 9, 2008.
- Contra Costa Times, "Times recommendations on California propositions," October 19, 2008.
- San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Propositions in Review," October 19, 2008.
- Napa Valley Register, Vote No On Proposition 9, October 16, 2008
- Salinas Californian, "Vote no on state Props. 5, 6 and 9," October 18, 2008.
- Monterey County Herald, "Proposition endorsements," October 17, 2008.
- Long Beach Press-Telegram, "No on Proposition 9," October 4, 2008.
- Desert Dispatch, "Victims' Rights Yes, Amendment No," October 8, 2008
- The Reporter, "Vote No on Prop. 9," October 22, 2008.
- Los Angeles Daily News, "No on Props. 5, 6, and 9.
- Santa Cruz Sentinel, "As We See It: Vote No on Props. 6 and 9," October 15, 2008.
- Modesto Bee, "Prop. 9 is too ambitious," October 9 2008.
- The Appeal-Democrat, "Our View: Victims’ rights Prop. 9 doesn’t seem necessary," October 5, 2008.
- Record Searchlight, "Victims' rights act only on paper," October 10, 2008.
- Milpitas Post, "Blasting some of the worst propositions," October 9, 2008.
- Eureka Reporter, "The Eureka Reporter recommends," October 14, 2008.
- Gay and Lesbian Times, "Our endorsements for state and local propositions," October 9, 2008.
- Mercury News, "Federal judge limits Calif. crime victims measure", March 26, 2009
- Los Angeles Times, "Appeals court backs Prop. 9 parole revocation rule", March 26, 2010
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |