History of crime victims' rights ballot measures
| Crime victims' rights ballot measures |
| Marsy's Law for All |
| Select a historical topic page from the menu below. |
Since 1982, 58 ballot measures concerning crime victims' rights have been on statewide ballots in 39 states. These measures include those related to the legal rights and protections of crime victims. They address a right to restitution, notification, participation in legal proceedings, and victim support services, among other rights guaranteed to victims of crimes.
Of the 58 ballot measures, 57 were constitutional amendments. One, in Oregon, was an initiated state statute. It is excluded from this analysis, which focuses on measures that proposed amending state constitutions to include crime victims' rights.
Of the 57 constitutional amendments, 55 would have established or expanded the rights of crime victims, and two would have limited the rights of crime victims.[1] Voters have never rejected a constitutional amendment that would establish or expand crime victims’ rights. The only rejected amendment was South Carolina Amendment 1, which would have permitted the state legislature to exempt victims of certain crimes from the protections included in the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights.
Of the 57 constitutional amendments on the ballot since 1982, 33 added a crime victims' bill of rights, 15 added Marsy's Law, three added a single right for victims of crimes, and six amendments altered or would have altered preexisting Marsy's Law amendments or crime victims' bill of rights amendments.
In 2026, Tennessee voters will decide a constitutional amendment which would add Marsy's Law to the state constitution. If approved, Tennessee will become the sixteenth state with Marsy's Law in the state constitution.
On this page, you will find:
- an overview of the two main types of constitutional amendments that grant crime victims rights;
- a list of states that have voted on crime victims' rights ballot measures;
- a timeline of crime victims' rights ballot measures;
- a list of measures overturned by state courts after voter approval;
- a list of measures by year; and
- a list of measures by topic.
Types of crime victims' rights ballot measures
Crime victims' bill of rights
Thirty-three (33) states have passed a ballot measure to add a crime victims' bill of rights to their state constitutions. Not every state refers to such amendments as a Crime Victims' Bill of Rights. Most states had no official title for these amendments. In other states, these amendments have been referred to as Rights of the People, Rights of Victims of Crime, and Rights of Crime Victims.
Each state's crime victims' bill of rights amendment contains different guarantees of rights. Some commonly included rights are the right to:
- be present at criminal proceedings;
- make a victim impact statement at sentencing hearings;
- restitution from their attacker or abuser;
- timely disposition of the case;
- be informed of the release of the accused due to parole or completion of their sentence; and
- be treated with fairness, dignity, and privacy during criminal proceedings.
Marsy's Law
Amendments referred to as Marsy's Law are a type of crime victims' bill of rights amendment, but they closely model an example constitutional amendment released by the organization Marsy's Law for All.
The effort to institute Marsy's Law across the U.S. has been primarily backed by Henry Nicholas, co-founder of Broadcom Corporation. Henry's sister, Marsalee ("Marsy") Nicholas, was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. A week later, Henry and his mother encountered Marsy's ex-boyfriend at a grocery store after he was released on bail; Henry and his mother were unaware of his release. In 2009, Henry founded Marsy's Law for All LLC, the national organization advocating for Marsy's Law. The organization describes its mission in the following way: "Marsy’s Law for All seeks to amend state constitutions that don’t offer protections to crime victims and, eventually, the U.S. Constitution to give victims of crime rights equal to those already afforded to the accused and convicted."[2]
The model constitutional amendment released by Marsy's Law for All includes the following key provisions:[3]
- The right to be notified about and present at proceedings;
- The right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole of the accused;
- The right to have the safety of the victim and victim's family considered when making bail or release decisions;
- The right to be protected from the accused;
- The right to be notified about release or escape of the accused;
- The right to refuse an interview or deposition at the request of the accused;
- The right to receive restitution from the individual who committed the criminal offense.
The model amendment states that the Marsy's Law definition of victim includes both the person directly harmed by a crime and "any spouse, parent, grandparent, child, sibling, grandchild, or guardian, and any person with a relationship to the victim that is substantially similar to a listed relationship."[3]
California was the first state to add Marsy's Law to their state constitution when voters approved Proposition 9 in 2008. Proposition 9 passed with 53.8% of the vote and became a model for several subsequent Marsy's Law ballot measures across the United States.
Types of crime victims' rights amendments by state
The map below shows the status of crime victims' rights amendments in state constitutions as of 2026. Of the 15 states that have passed Marsy's Law, eight had previously passed a crime victims' bill of rights.[4]
States that have voted on crime victims' rights ballot measures
Fifty-seven (57) constitutional amendments concerning crime victims' rights have been on the ballot in 39 states. All but one amendment has been approved. The state with the highest number of constitutional amendments concerning crime victims' rights is Oregon (five).
Forty-eight (48) constitutional amendments were placed on the ballot by state legislatures. Eight of the constitutional amendments were initiated by citizens. One amendment (in Florida) was referred to the ballot by a constitutional commission.
Timeline of crime victims' rights ballot measures
Constitutional amendments on statewide ballots that granted crime victims' rights can be separated into two main time periods. During the first period, which spanned from 1982-1999, 35 constitutional amendments were approved, and one was defeated. Of the 35 constitutional amendments approved, 33 implemented a crime victims' bill of rights.
The second period is defined by constitutional amendments that implement Marsy's Law. Since 2004, 21 constitutional amendments have been approved. Fifteen (15) of the 21 amendments (71.4%) added Marsy's Law to the state constitution.
Crime victims' rights by decade
1980s
Six constitutional amendments were approved in the 1980s that granted certain rights to crime victims. The first was California Proposition 8 in 1982. The measure was a combined constitutional amendment and state statute, meaning it made changes to the state constitution and state law.
The amendment granted crime victims the right to appear at hearings, the right to give a victim impact statement at sentencing hearings, and required that crime victims be ordered restitution for their losses. Proposition 8 differed from most other amendments concerning crime victims' rights because it also granted the courts discretion about when to grant bail and allowed an increase in prison sentences, among other changes to the criminal justice system.
In 1986, 68.2% of Rhode Island voters approved Amendment 8, a constitutional amendment to grant rights to crime victims. The amendment, like California Proposition 8, addressed other topics. Amendment 8 included free speech, due process, and equal protection clauses to the state constitution, along with other changes.
In 1988, Florida and Michigan approved constitutional amendments. Both were approved by more than 80% of voters. In 1989, Texas and Washington approved constitutional amendments.
1990s
More amendments granting rights to crime victims were on the ballot in the 1990s than in any other decade. Twenty-nine (29) amendments were approved, and one was defeated.
The 29 measures that were approved established or expanded the rights of crime victims. South Carolina Amendment 1 was defeated; 49.0% of voters approved the amendment, and 51.0% of voters opposed it. The measure would have permitted the state legislature to exempt victims of certain crimes from the protections included in the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights.[5]
2000s
In the 2000s, four constitutional amendments were approved in three states. In Hawaii, voters approved an amendment that guaranteed a crime victim the right to confidential communications between themselves and their doctors. In Oregon, voters approved two amendments to the constitution designed to enable crime victims to enforce their constitutional rights in court. The measures did not add any additional crime victims' rights to the constitution.
The fourth amendment, California Proposition 9, was the first constitutional amendment in the nation to be patterned after Marsy's Law. The measure was sponsored by Marsy's Law for All.
2010s
In the 2010s, 14 constitutional amendments were approved in 13 states that granted crime victims rights. Twelve (12) of the amendments were patterned after Marsy's Law.
Three of those amendments were later overturned by state courts.
The other two amendments were in South Dakota and Arizona. The 2018 amendment in South Dakota altered the Marsy's Law amendment originally approved in 2016. It made many of the rights guaranteed available to victims if they opt in, rather than requiring law enforcement and criminal justice officials to provide the rights unless victims opt out. It allowed law enforcement officials to share certain information with the public in order to assist in solving crimes or apprehending criminals. The amendment also contained provisions preventing any lawsuits from being filed against state or local government officials based on the Marsy's Law rights.
The amendment in Arizona protected felony crime victims from having to pay damages if they caused harm to their attacker during the commission of a felony.
2020s
In 2020, two constitutional amendments were approved in two states, Wisconsin and Kentucky. Both amendments were patterned after Marsy's Law.
In 2022, Alabama voters approved an amendment that was more limited in scope than the Marsy's law amendments. It required the governor to provide notice to the attorney general and the victim's family before granting a commutation or reprieve of a death sentence.
States where crime victims' rights amendments were overturned after voter approval
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvanians voted on Marsy’s Law at the election on November 5, 2019. The ballot measure received 74% of the vote. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enjoined Acting Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar from certifying election results, pending the results of a complaint in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.[6]
On October 10, 2019, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court that challenged the ballot measure. The complaint stated that the ballot measure proposed more than one amendment to the state constitution and therefore violated the state's single-subject rule.[7] Acting Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), the defendant in the case, argued that the ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional.
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, in a 3-2 decision, ruled that the 2019 amendment violated the state’s separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments.[8] On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the commonwealth court's decision, overturning the measure.[9]
Kentucky
A majority of Kentucky voters (62.8%) approved a Marsy's Law amendment in 2018. The results of the ballot question were never certified.
The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed litigation against the state on August 13, 2018, stating that the ballot question failed to "inform the electorate of the substance of the amendment."[10] A circuit court judge blocked votes on the amendment from being certified after the court found that the ballot language did not fairly and fully inform the electorate.[11]
On June 12, 2019, the Kentucky Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling that the ballot language did not provide enough information, rendering the Marsy's Law constitutional amendment invalid. Chief Justice John D. Minton, Jr. said, "Our constitution is too important and valuable to be amended without the full amendment ever being put to the public."[12] The ruling also stated, "We hold that Section 256 of the Kentucky Constitution requires the General Assembly to submit the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment to the electorate for a vote. Likewise, Section 257 requires the secretary of state to publish the full text of the proposed amendment at least ninety days before the vote. Because the form of the amendment that was published and submitted to the electorate for a vote in this case was not the full text, and was instead a question, the proposed amendment is void."[13]
In 2020, voters in Kentucky approved Marsy's Law for a second time, with the new ballot measure including the complete text of the amendment.
Montana
In 2016, a majority of Montana voters (66.1%) approved Initiative 116, which would have added Marsy's Law in the state. Initiative 116 was never added to the state constitution due to a court ruling.
On June 20, 2017, a group of plaintiffs, including the Montana Association of Counties, filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana with the Montana Supreme Court. The plaintiffs said that Initiative 116 violated the state's single-subject rule and separate vote requirement and was, therefore, unconstitutional. The lawsuit stated that the new section added to the constitution by the initiative (Article II, Section 36), while one contiguous text, effectively amends multiple, separate pre-existing sections of the constitution.[14]
On November 1, 2017, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the initiative as unconstitutional. In a 5-2 decision, the court said that the initiative violated the separate-vote requirement of the Montana Constitution.[15]
List of crime victims' rights ballot measures
List of state ballot measures by year
The following table provides a list of crime victims' rights ballot measures from 1982 to 2025:
List of state ballot measures by topic
Amendments that added a single right to the constitution
The following ballot measures added a single right for victims of crimes to the state constitution. In Alabama and Arizona, the measures added a right to existing victims' rights amendments in the state constitutions. In Hawaii, the ballot measure added a standalone right to the state constitution.
| State | Year | Measure | Yes vote | No vote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 2022 | Amendment 3, Notice to Victim's Family Required for Commutation or Reprieve of Death Sentences Amendment | 81.9% | 18.1% |  |
| Arizona | 2012 | Proposition 114, Crime Victim Protection Amendment | 79.9% | 20.1% | |
| Hawaii | 2004 | Question 3, Patient Confidentiality Amendment | 60.9% | 39.1% | |
Crime victims' bill of rights amendments
The following amendments added a crime victims' bill of rights to the state constitution. While many of the amendments contained similar provisions, unlike Marsy's Law amendments, these ballot measures were not based on a model amendment and vary in content.
Marsy's Law amendments
Below is a list of the 15 constitutional amendments that were sponsored by Marsy's Law for All and were patterned after the amendment suggested by the organization. Of the fifteen states that have passed Marsy's Law, eight had previously passed a crime victims' bill of rights.
Measures to alter preexisting amendments
Six ballot measures to alter preexisting Marsy's Law amendments or crime victims' bill of rights amendments have been on the ballot in three states.
Four of the measures expanded crime victims' rights by adding more rights to existing amendments or implementing policies making victims' rights more readily accessible to victims. Two of the measures would have limited crime victims' rights. South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y required victims to opt in to receive access to their rights; South Carolina Amendment 1 would have permitted the state legislature to exempt some victims from accessing the rights in the state's Crime Victims' Bill of Rights. South Carolina Amendment 1 is the only crime victims' rights ballot measure to be defeated by voters.
The chart below lists these ballot measures and summarizes how they changed or would have changed victims' rights in each state.
| State | Year | Measure | Effect | Yes vote | No vote | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota | 2018 | Constitutional Amendment Y, Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment | Make some of the rights guaranteed available to victims if they opt in instead of requiring law enforcement and criminal justice officials to provide the rights unless victims opt out | 79.5% | 20.5% | |
| Oregon | 2008 | Measure 52, Enforcement of Crime Victims Rights from Offenders Amendment | Authorize the state legislature to pass implementing legislation to grant victims reasonable protection and require courts to consider victim and public safety when determining pretrial release | 74.9% | 25.1% | |
| Oregon | 2008 | Measure 51, Crime Victim Rights Enforcement Amendment | Authorize the state legislature to pass implementing legislation to allow victims to be present at proceedings, refuse defendants discovery requests, receive restitution, obtain transcripts, and consult about plea negotiations | 74.9% | 25.1% | |
| Oregon | 1999 | Measure 71, Crime Victims' Rights and Pretrial Release Amendment | Grant victims the right to reasonable protection during the justice process and require courts to consider victim and public safety when determining pretrial release, among other changes | 58.0% | 42.0% | |
| Oregon | 1999 | Measure 69, Victims' Rights in Criminal Prosecutions Amendment | Grant victims additional rights, including the right to be notified of and be present at court proceedings, to be heard at release hearings and sentencing, to restitution, and to be consulted at certain plea negotiations | 58.2% | 41.8% | |
| South Carolina | 1998 | Amendment 1 | Allow the legislature to exempt from the protection of the Victims’ Bill of Rights certain felonies or misdemeanors, and specify which crime victims are protected by the Victims’ Bill of Rights | 49.0% | 51.0% |  |
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y required victims to opt in to receive access to their rights and South Carolina Amendment 1 would have permitted the state legislature to exempt some victims from accessing the rights in the state's Crime Victims' Bill of Rights.
- ↑ Marsy's Law for All, "About Marsy's Law," accessed February 1, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Marsy's Law for All, "A Model Constitutional Amendment To Afford Victims Equal Rights," accessed February 1, 2018
- ↑ Hawaii is not included on the map; Hawaii does not have Marsy's Law or a crime victims' bill of rights in the state constitution, but voters did pass a single constitutional amendment to guarantee a crime victim the right to confidential communications between themselves and their doctors.
- ↑ In 1996, South Carolina voters approved Referendum 1A, with 88.8% voting yes. Referendum 1A added the Victims' Bill of Rights to the state constitution.
- ↑ Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, "League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Boockvar," October 30, 2019
- ↑ Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, "League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Boockvar," October 10, 2019
- ↑ U.S. News, "Split Court Tosses Pennsylvania Victims' Rights Amendment," January 7, 2021
- ↑ Pennsylvania Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Degraffenreid - Ruling: Majority Opinion," December 21, 2021
- ↑ WDRB, "Court takes up ‘Marsy’s Law’ challenge weeks from election," October 9, 2018
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Kentucky judge blocks certification of ‘Marsy’s Law’ vote," October 15, 2018
- ↑ Courier Journal, "Kentucky Supreme Court says Marsy's Law, the crime victim's amendment, is invalid," June 13, 2019
- ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Marsy’s Law, says ballot wording was too vague," June 13, 2020
- ↑ Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Text of Lawsuit filing," accessed June 22, 2017
- ↑ Montana Supreme Court, "Opinion and Order," November 1, 2017
| ||||||||||||||
