Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2020)
| Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, the Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment was on the ballot in Kentucky as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.[1] It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported adding specific rights of crime victims, together known as Marsy's Law, to the Kentucky Constitution. |
A "no" vote opposed adding specific rights of crime victims, together known as Marsy's Law, to the Kentucky Constitution. |
Election results
|
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
1,156,883 | 63.36% | ||
| No | 668,866 | 36.64% | ||
Overview
What did Constitutional Amendment 1 add to the Kentucky Constitution?
- See also: Text of the measure
Constitutional Amendment 1 was a type of Marsy's Law. The measure provided crime victims with specific constitutional rights, including the right to be treated with fairness and due consideration for the victim’s safety, dignity, and privacy; to be notified about proceedings; to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, or sentencing of the accused; to proceedings free from unreasonable delays; to be present at trials; to consult with the state's attorneys; to reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused; to be notified about release or escape of the accused; to have the victim's and victim's family's safety considered when setting bail or determining release; and to receive restitution from the individual who committed the criminal offense.[2]
Why did Marsy's Law appear on Kentucky ballots again?
Kentucky voters approved a Marsy's Law amendment in 2018 with 63 percent of the vote, but it was overturned in KACDL v. Grimes and Board of Elections. The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed litigation against the state on August 13, 2018. The association said the ballot question, which the state legislature wrote, fails to "inform the electorate of the substance of the amendment" and that the constitutional amendment should be blocked. On June 12, 2019, the Kentucky Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rendered the amendment void. The ruling 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."[3]
In response to the court's ruling, the Kentucky State Legislature required that the ballot question and the full text of the 2020 amendment be printed on November ballots.
What other states have passed Marsy's Law?
- See also: Marsy's Law in the states
As of October 2020, 14 states had passed a ballot measure for Marsy's Law. The first was in California in 2008. Between 2008 and 2020, voters had approved Marsy's Law in Illinois (2014), Montana (2016), North Dakota (2016), South Dakota (2016), Ohio (2017), Florida (2018), Georgia (2018), Kentucky (2018), Nevada (2018), North Carolina (2018), Oklahoma (2018), Pennsylvania (2019), and Wisconsin (2020). Ballotpedia identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures that were on ballots between 2008 and 2020. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 97 percent—about 99.3 million—of the total contributions. Marsy's Law is named after Henry Nicholas' sister, who was murdered in 1983.
Text of the measure
Ballot question
The following ballot question appeared with the complete text of the amendment:[2]
| “ | Are you in favor of creating a new section of the Constitution of Kentucky relating to crime victims, as proposed in Section 2 below?[4] | ” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Kentucky Constitution
Constitutional Amendment 1 added a new section to the Kentucky Constitution:[2]
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
To secure for victims of criminal acts or public offenses justice and due process and to ensure crime victims a meaningful role throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim, as defined by law which takes effect upon the enactment of this section and which may be expanded by the General Assembly, shall have the following rights, which shall be respected and protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded to the accused in the criminal and juvenile justice systems: victims shall have the reasonable right, upon request, to timely notice of all proceedings and to be heard in any proceeding involving a release, plea, sentencing, or in the consideration of any pardon, commutation of sentence, granting of a reprieve, or other matter involving the right of a victim other than grand jury proceedings; the right to be present at the trial and all other proceedings, other than grand jury proceedings, on the same basis as the accused; the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; the right to consult with the attorney for the Commonwealth or the attorney's designee; the right to reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused throughout the criminal and juvenile justice process; the right to timely notice, upon request, of release or escape of the accused; the right to have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in setting bail, determining whether to release the defendant, and setting conditions of release after arrest and conviction; the right to full restitution to be paid by the convicted or adjudicated party in a manner to be determined by the court, except that in the case of a juvenile offender the court shall determine the amount and manner of paying the restitution taking into consideration the best interests of the juvenile offender and the victim; the right to fairness and due consideration of the crime victim's safety, dignity, and privacy; and the right to be informed of these enumerated rights, and shall have standing to assert these rights. The victim, the victim's attorney or other lawful representative, or the attorney for the Commonwealth upon request of the victim may seek enforcement of the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law in any trial or appellate court with jurisdiction over the case. The court shall act promptly on such a request and afford a remedy for the violation of any right. Nothing in this section shall afford the victim party status, or be construed as altering the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system. The accused shall not have standing to assert the rights of a victim. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the prosecuting attorney. Nothing in this section or any law enacted under this section creates a cause of action for compensation, attorney's fees, or damages against the Commonwealth, a county, city, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, an officer, employee, or agent of the Commonwealth, a county, city, municipal corporation, or any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or an officer or employee of the court. Nothing in this section or any law enacted under this section shall be construed as creating: (1) A basis for vacating a conviction; or (2) A ground for any relief requested by the defendant.[4] |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
| Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure.
|
Support
Marsy's Law for Kentucky led the campaign in support of the amendment.[5]
Supporters
Officials
- State Sen. David Givens (R)
Unions
Organizations
- Advocacy Action Network
- Children’s Advocacy Centers of Kentucky
- Kentucky League of Cities
- Kentucky Sheriffs’ Association
- Kentucky State Police Professional Association
- University of Louisville PEACC Center
Arguments
Opposition
Vote NO on Marsy's Law KY led the campaign in opposition to Constitutional Amendment 1.[6]
Opponents
Officials
- State Senator John Schickel (R)
- State Representative Chad McCoy (R)
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
One political issue committee—Marsy's Law For Kentucky—registered in support of Constitutional Amendment 1. The committee reported receiving $2.3 million in contributions.[7]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $2,346,602.11 | $2,250.00 | $2,348,852.11 | $2,281,296.94 | $2,283,546.94 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Constitutional Amendment 1:[7]
| Committees in support of Constitutional Amendment 1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Marsy's Law for Kentucky | $2,346,602.11 | $2,250.00 | $2,348,852.11 | $2,281,296.94 | $2,283,546.94 |
| Total | $2,346,602.11 | $2,250.00 | $2,348,852.11 | $2,281,296.94 | $2,283,546.94 |
Top donors
The following chart lists the top donor to the campaign in support of Constitutional Amendment 1:[7]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marsy's Law For All Foundation | $2,346,602.11 | $2,250.00 | $2,348,852.11 |
Opposition
Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered in opposition to the amendment.
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
- See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements
Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Support
Opposition
Background
Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018)
Kentucky voters approved a Marsy's Law amendment in 2018 with 63 percent of the vote, but it was overturned in KACDL v. Grimes and Board of Elections. The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed litigation against the state on August 13, 2018. The association said the ballot question, which the state legislature wrote, fails to "inform the electorate of the substance of the amendment" and that the constitutional amendment should be blocked.
On October 15, 2018, Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin County Circuit Court blocked Secretary of State Alison Grimes from certifying the results of the constitutional amendment, which received 62.18 percent of the vote.[8] Judge Wingate said the ballot question did not fairly and fully inform the electorate. Snyder, the campaign's lawyer, said the constitution required an explanation of the amendment's substance in the ballot question. The defendants appealed the case to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which heard arguments on February 8, 2018.[9][10]
On June 12, 2019, the Kentucky Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, rendered the amendment void. The ruling 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."[3]
Kentucky Senate Bill 80 (2020)
On April 14, 2020, the Kentucky State Legislature approved Senate Bill 80 (SB 80). The bill would change the statutory definition of a victim, require full restitution be paid to a victim, and repeal a provision regarding the failure to provide a right, notice or privilege to a victim. The bill would take effect upon approval of the Marsy's Law amendment in November.[11]
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.[12][13]
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, SEIU California State Council, California Democratic Party, and 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.[14] 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. [15]
In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.[16]
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.[17]
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%[18] | 21.55%[18] | 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 Kentucky Constitution
To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a 60 percent supermajority vote is required in both the Kentucky State Senate and the Kentucky House of Representatives.
This amendment was introduced as Senate Bill 15 (SB 15) on January 9, 2020. On February 25, 2020, the state Senate passed SB 15 in a vote of 31-6, with one abstaining. Of the 28 Republicans in the senate, 25 voted in favor of SB 15, and four voted against it. Six Democrats voted for it, two voted against it, and one abstained.
On April 14, 2020, the state House passed SB 15 in a vote of 74-15, with 11 not voting. Of the 62 Republicans, 52 voted in favor of the amendment, 10 voted against it, and four did not vote. Of the 38 Democrats, 22 voted in favor of it, nine voted against it, and seven did not vote.[1][19]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the constitutional amendment violates the constitutional requirement that ballot measures relate to a single subject matter and whether the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the requirement that constitutional amendments relate to a single subject matter and did not follow the correct procedures to place the amendment on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The amendment does not violate the single subject matter rule because all provisions of the amendment relate to crime victims' rights, and the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot and did so with bipartisan support. |
Source: Messenger-Inquirer
The Kentucky chapter of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a lawsuit against Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) arguing that the Marsy's Law amendment violated the state constitution's requirement that amendments "relate to a single subject or to related subject matters and may amend or modify as many articles and as many sections of the Constitution as may be necessary and appropriate in order to accomplish the objectives of the amendment." The lawsuit says the Marsy's Law amendment contains four independent amendments, which include: giving certain rights to crime victims; "altering the structure of government" by authorizing lawmakers to protect victims’ rights; extending civil immunity to certain government agencies; and "limiting the rights of persons accused of crime."[20]
The lawsuit also argued that the Kentucky State Legislature did not follow the correct procedures to place the amendment on the ballot because the approved legislation was never presented to the governor. The lawsuit says that the amendment is also unconstitutional because it does not define "crime victim," but rather relies on Senate Bill 80 to define it.[20]
On July 21, 2020, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the state. In a press release announcing the motion to intervene, Attorney General Daniel Cameron said, "The Kentucky Constitution permits the General Assembly to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot for consideration by the people. Because government derives its power from the people, I will strongly defend the right of Kentuckians to vote on proposed constitutional amendments, including Marsy’s Law."[21]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Kentucky
Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Kentucky.
| How to cast a vote in Kentucky | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll timesIn Kentucky, all polls are open from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central and Eastern Time. All those in line by 6:00 p.m. will be permitted to vote.[22] Registration requirementsIn order to vote in Kentucky, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state for at least 28 days before Election Day. A voter must be at least 18 years old by Election Day.[23] Registration must be completed 28 days prior to the election. Registration can be completed by submitting a form by mail or at one of the following locations:[23]
Automatic registrationKentucky does not practice automatic voter registration. Online registration
Kentucky has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registrationKentucky does not allow same-day voter registration. Residency requirementsKentucky law requires 28 days of residency in the state before a person may vote. Verification of citizenshipKentucky does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registrationThe Voter Information Center site, run by the Kentucky State Board of Elections, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.
Voter ID requirements | |||||
See also
External links
Support |
Opposition |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Kentucky State Legislature, "SB 15 Overview," accessed February 25, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Kentucky State Legislature, "SB 15 Full Text," accessed February 26, 2020
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lexington Herald Leader, "Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Marsy’s Law, says ballot wording was too vague," June 13, 2020
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Marsy's Law for Kentucky, "Home," accessed May 6, 2020
- ↑ Facebook, "Vote No on Marsy's Law KY," accessed October 26, 2020
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Kentucky Registry of Election Finance, "Organizations Search," accessed May 9, 2020
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Kentucky judge blocks certification of ‘Marsy’s Law’ vote," October 15, 2018
- ↑ WPSD Local 6, "Advocacy group files appeal on Marsy’s Law ballot question," October 16, 2018
- ↑ Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, "Attorneys for "Marsy's Law" file arguments with state Supreme Court," December 21, 2018
- ↑ Kentucky State Legislature, "Senate Bill 80," accessed May 15, 2020
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 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.
- ↑ Kentucky State Senate, "Senate Vote," accessed February 25, 2020
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Messenger-Inquirer, "Lawsuit challenges 'Marsy's Law,'" July 20, 2020
- ↑ Office of the Kentucky Attorney General, "Attorney General Cameron Files Motion to Defend Marsy’s Law in Court," July 21, 2020
- ↑ Kentucky Board of Elections, "Voter Information Guide," accessed April 26, 2023
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 Kentucky Board of Elections, "Voter Information Guide," accessed April 26, 2023
 |
State of Kentucky Frankfort (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2023 | 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 |
