Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Idaho Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2020)
| Idaho Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The Idaho Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment was not on the ballot in Idaho as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on March 10, 2020.
This measure is part of a national effort to enact similar Marsy's Law amendments. Measures concerning Marsy's Law crime victim rights amendments were put on the ballot in six states for 2018 elections. Electors in all six states voted to approve the amendments. Read more about Marsy's Law here »
Overview
Measure design
The measure would have provided crime victims with specific rights, including the right (upon request) to be notified of and be present at all open proceedings involving the accused; the right to be heard at any open proceedings involving the accused; and the right to be informed of their rights. It would have also provided victims with the right to reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused throughout the criminal justice process. As used in the measure, victim meant "an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial, or emotional harm as the result of the commission of a crime or juvenile offense."[1]
The Status of Marsy's Law in the United States
Henry Nicholas, founder of Marsy's Law for All, funded Marsy's law ballot measures in 12 states, six of which were on the ballot in 2018 (Nevada, Florida, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Georgia, and North Carolina). Voters approved all 12 measures, but the Kentucky and Montana amendments were ruled invalid through court decisions, leaving 10 states with Marsy's Law amendments in place. Marsy's Law was named after Henry Nicholas's sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983.
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question for the amendment would have appeared as follows:[1]
| “ | Shall Section 22, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide additional rights to crime victims, including the right to reasonable and timely notification of open criminal justice proceedings, reasonable protection from the accused, the right to be heard at certain open criminal justice proceedings, and to provide standing to assert their rights?[2] | ” |
Full text
- See also: Idaho Constitution
The full text of the measure can be found here.
Background
Marsy's Law
- See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights
Marsy's Law is a type of crime victims' rights legislation. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for Marsy's Law to increase the rights and privileges of victims in state constitutions. Marsy's Law is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.
Henry Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy's Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008. He formed the national organization, Marsy's Law for All, in 2009.[3][4]
Ballotpedia identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures. Henry Nicholas and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 91 percent—about 103.2 million—of the total contributions.
The following map shows the status of Marsy's Law ballot measures across the states:
California Proposition 9
Californians voted on Proposition 9 in 2008, which was the first ballot measure known as Marsy's Law. Proposition 9 required that victims and their families be notified during all aspects of the justice process, including bail, sentencing, and parole; and that authorities take a victim's safety into concern when assigning bail or conducting a parole review. Along with Henry Nicholas, Proposition 9 received support from Crime Victims United of California and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Proposition 9 faced opposition from the California Teachers Association, the SEIU California State Council, the California Democratic Party, and the California Federation of Teachers. Proposition 9 passed with about 54 percent of the vote and became a model for several subsequent Marsy's Law ballot measures across the United States.
Marsy's Law ballot measures
The first state to vote on Marsy's Law after California was Illinois in 2014. The constitutional amendment received 72.3 percent of the vote in Illinois.
Marsy's Law for All organized campaigns for ballot initiatives in three states in 2016—Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Voters in each state approved the ballot initiative. Montana's Marsy's Law was ruled unconstitutional in 2017 because the ballot initiative, according to the court, violated the state's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments.[5] In June 2018, the South Dakota Legislature asked voters to amend Marsy's Law via Amendment Y. Amendment Y, which was approved, was defined to narrow the definition of crime victim and require victims to opt-in to Marsy's Law's protections, rather than making those protections automatic. [6]
In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.[7]
The number of Marsy's Law amendments in state constitutions doubled in 2018 from six to 12. The states that voted on Marsy's Law in 2018 were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Kentucky's Marsy's Law was ruled invalid in June 2019 because the language for the ballot measure, according to the court, did not meet constitutional requirements.[8]
The Pennsylvania General Assembly referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on November 5, 2019. The Wisconsin State Legislature referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on April 7, 2020.
The following table describes the outcome of votes on Marsy's Law ballot measures:
| State | Measure | Year | Percent “Yes” | Percent “No” | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | Proposition 9 | 2008 | 53.84% | 46.16% | Approved |
| Illinois | Amendment | 2014 | 78.45%[9] | 21.55%[9] | Approved |
| Montana | Initiative 116 | 2016 | 66.09% | 33.91% | Approved (Overturned) |
| North Dakota | Measure 3 | 2016 | 62.03% | 37.97% | Approved |
| South Dakota | Amendment S | 2016 | 59.61% | 40.39% | Approved (Amended) |
| Ohio | Issue 1 | 2017 | 82.59% | 17.41% | Approved |
| Florida | Amendment 6 | 2018 | 61.61% | 38.39% | Approved |
| Georgia | Amendment 4 | 2018 | 80.93% | 19.07% | Approved |
| Kentucky | Amendment | 2018 | 62.81% | 37.19% | Approved (Overturned) |
| Nevada | Question 1 | 2018 | 61.19% | 38.81% | Approved |
| North Carolina | Amendment | 2018 | 62.13% | 37.87% | Approved |
| Oklahoma | State Question 794 | 2018 | 78.01% | 21.99% | Approved |
| Average | 66.44% | 33.56% |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Idaho Constitution
The Idaho Legislature has the power to place constitutional amendments on the ballot when both houses of the legislature approve the amendment by a two-thirds majority vote. Once on the ballot, the amendment must be approved by a simple majority of the electors.
This amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 101 on February 1, 2019. The measure was passed in the Senate on February 18, 2019, in a vote of 25-9 with one Republican Senator, Van Burtenshaw, not voting. All seven Senate Democrats voted yes. Of the 28 Senate Republicans, 18 voted yes and nine voted no. The House did not pass the measure before the legislature adjourned on April 11, 2019.[10][1]
| Vote in the Idaho State Senate | |||
| Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber | |||
Number of yes votes required: 24  | |||
| Yes | No | Not voting | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 25 | 9 | 1 |
| Total percent | 71.42% | 25.71% | 2.85% |
| Democrat | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 18 | 9 | 1 |
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Idaho Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 101 full text," accessed February 20, 2019
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Dickinson Press, "California man donates $1M to N.D. Marsy’s Law supporters; 44,000 signatures submitted to get measure on ballot," May 10, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Times, "North Dakota opponents to speak out against Marsy's Law," June 23, 2016
- ↑ Montana Supreme Court, "Opinion and Order," November 1, 2017
- ↑ Argus Leader, "What's at stake as voters again consider victims' rights amendment," May 18, 2019
- ↑ Toledo Blade, "Victims’ initiative passed to DeWine," January 25, 2017
- ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Marsy’s Law, says ballot wording was too vague," June 13, 2020
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 In Illinois, the amount of total votes in the overall election are used to determine whether a measure was approved or defeated. Using total votes, 72% voted 'yes', 20% voted 'no', and 8% did not vote on the measure. In order to compare and average results for Marsy's Law across states, 'yes' and 'no' percentages were calculated using total votes on the measure, rather than total votes in the election.
- ↑ Idaho Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 101," accessed February 20, 2019
 |
State of Idaho Boise (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
