Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018)

Elections in Kentucky, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Photo or non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • State Senate • State House • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Kentucky Marsy's Law Amendment
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Law enforcement
Status ot Overturned
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Kentucky measuresKentucky Marsy's Law AmendmentSubmit

The Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment was on the ballot in Kentucky as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. Although a majority of voters approved the amendment, a circuit court judge blocked votes on the amendment from being certified on October 15, 2018. The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling on June 13, 2019, meaning the Marsy's Law amendment was not enacted.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Kentucky Constitution.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Kentucky Constitution.

Election results

Kentucky Marsy's Law Amendment
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		868,932	62.81%
No		514,440	37.19%

Results are officially certified.

Source

KACDL v. Grimes and Board of Elections

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate
Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language
Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.	Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment.

  Source: WFPL

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. The association added, "No voter who reads this question would be adequately informed of the complexity and radical departure from current law of this proposed amendment." Sheryl Snyder, a lawyer for Marsy’s Law for Kentucky, responded, "Our argument simply is that the court should defer to the General Assembly’s formulation of the ballot question."

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. 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.

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, rending 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." 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."

Responses from supporters of amendment

• Sen. Whitney Westerfield (R-3), chairperson of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a legislative sponsor of Marsy's Law, responded to the court's ruling, saying, "Kentucky voters spoke loud and clear in support of crime victims on Election Day in 2018. Like the majority of Kentuckians, I believe that crime victims deserve to be afforded the respect, justice, and equal rights that Marsy's Law would provide. It is troubling that in order to reach this conclusion the Supreme Court reversed years of established precedent and inserted an entirely new requirement for amending our state constitution. I hope the General Assembly will take up Marsy's Law again and give Kentucky voters another opportunity to voice their support for crime victims in 2020."

• Marsy’s Law for Kentucky, which supported the constitutional amendment, issued a statement following the ruling, which said, "This is not the end of the line for Marsy’s Law but merely a fork in the road. For we are now more than ever committed to delivering crime victims the equal rights they are owed. We look forward to working with the General Assembly again to put Marsy’s Law back on the ballot for Kentucky voters in 2020 in a form that will pass legal muster as defined by the court."

Overview

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 »

Measure design

The measure was a type of Marsy's Law. The measure would have provided crime victims with specific constitutional rights, which, according to the text, would include 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.

Crime victim rights in Kentucky

As of 2018, Kentucky had a statute called the Kentucky Crime Victim Bill of Rights (CVBR). The Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment would create a constitutional amendment, not a statute like the existing CVBR. The CVBR provided statutory rights to crime victims, including a right to information on compensation, treatment programs, the victim's participation in the criminal justice process; information on the arrest of the accused and how to register for notifications on the accused's status; information on how they may be protected from intimidation, harassment, and retaliation; prompt updates on judicial proceedings; and to submit a written victim impact statement to the court.

Status of Marsy's Law

Going into the election, six other states had ratified constitutional amendments known as Marsy's Law. The first was California in 2008, where voters approved the citizen-initiated Proposition 9. In 2014, the Illinois State Legislature became the first legislature to refer a Marsy's Law, which voters approved. Marsy's Law for All sponsored initiative campaigns in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota in 2016 and Ohio in 2017. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., provided financial backing for the initiatives. Voters approved the four measures. As of 2018, a Marsy's Law measure had never been defeated at the ballot box. Contributions in support of the six Marsy's Law measures were an aggregate $29.7 million. In 2018, voters in Nevada, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia also considered and approved Marsy's Law amendments. The amendment was named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Are you in favor of providing constitutional rights to victims of crime, including the right to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and the right to be informed and to have a voice in the judicial process?

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Kentucky Constitution

The measure would add a new section to the Kentucky Constitution:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll 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 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.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

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. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 17, and the FRE is 41. The word count for the ballot title is 38, and the estimated reading time is 10 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Marsy's Law for Kentucky is leading the campaign in support of the measure.

Supporters

Officials

The following officials sponsored the amendment in the state legislature:

• Sen. Stan Humphries (R-1)
• Sen. Danny Carroll (R-2)
• Sen. Whitney Westerfield (R-3)
• Sen. Dorsey Ridley (D-4)
• Sen. Stephen Meredith (R-5)
• Sen. C.B. Embry Jr. (R-6)
• Sen. Joe Bowen (R-8)
• Sen. David Givens (R-9)
• Sen. Dennis Parrett (D-10)
• Sen. Reggie Thomas (D-13)
• Sen. Jimmy Higdon (R-14)
• Sen. Rick Girdler (R-15)
• Sen. Max Wise (R-16)
• Sen. Damon Thayer (R-17)
• Sen. Paul Hornback (R-20)
• Sen. Albert Robinson (R-21)
• Sen. Steve West (R-27)
• Sen. Ralph Alvarado (R-28)
• Sen. Brandon Smith (R-30)
• Sen. Ray Jones (D-31)
• Sen. Mike Wilson (R-32)
• Sen. Gerald Neal (D-33)
• Sen. Jared Carpenter (R-34)
• Sen. Denise Harper Angel (D-35)
• Sen. Julie Raque Adams (R-36)

The following officials also endorsed the ballot measure:

• Rep. John Blanton (R-92)

Arguments

Caroline Ruschell, executive director of the Kentucky Association of Children's Advocacy Centers, Marcia Roth, executive director of the Mary Byron Project, and Eileen Recktenwald, executive director of the Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs, wrote an opinion article in the Courier Journal advocating for Marsy's Law:

“

You might be surprised to learn that, in Kentucky, victims have only a handful of unenforceable statutory rights. In sharp contrast, the accused and convicted enjoy a multitude of enforceable constitutional rights. This creates an automatic imbalance in the justice system against the person who has already been harmed. Because the sparse rights that crime victims are provided aren’t currently enforceable, consistency in the manner in which they are treated suffers. A victim in a rural Kentucky county may have an entirely different experience than a victim in a bigger city. This lack of consistency makes navigating the criminal justice system extremely confusing in an already difficult time. ... Through working with crime victims in our professional capacities, we witness firsthand how victims can often feel re-victimized by the criminal justice system. These men and women have suffered enough. Marsy’s Law will elevate the level of legal protection for crime victims so that it is on par with that provided to the accused and convicted.

”

Other arguments in support of the measure include:

• Sen. Whitney Westerfield (R-3), a sponsor of the amendment, said, "Statutory protections, when they go head to head with the rights of the accused that are enshrined in the Constitution, they lose. Right now, the victims are not on equal footing with the accused. I believe they should be."
• Rep. John Blanton (R-92) stated, "Constitutional rights for victims will help level the playing field between victims and accused criminals, who already have constitutional-protected rights."

Opposition

Opponents

• ACLU of Kentucky

Arguments

David M. Ward, president Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, wrote an opinion article in the North Kentucky Tribue opposing Marsy's Law:

“

The problem is that the [ballot] language... conceals what would be a dramatic change in the Kentucky Constitution and alters nearly every criminal case being prosecuted in the Commonwealth. ... The problem is that it is easier for legislators to back a Constitutional Amendment in the name of “Victims’ Rights” than it is to provide oversight, funding, and enforcement of the Victims’ Rights laws we already have. ... The reason we have the procedural protections for the accused that we do is that our criminal justice framework rests on the presumption of the accused’s innocence and the fact that, occasionally, people that are accused of a crime are not guilty. Identifying a “crime victim” at the outset of the proceeding presumes just the opposite. Take for example one category of cases – those involving self-defense. Do we really want a system where a person who claims this fundamental right of self-protection must defend themselves not only against the power of the State but also against the legal onslaught mounted by a victim who later, after a trial, turns out to be anything but?

”

Other arguments in opposition to the measure include:

• Rep. Chad McCoy (R-50) said, "I am not somebody who thinks we should be messing with the constitution for individual rights, especially when we can do it by statute."
• Heather Gatnarek, an attorney for the ACLU, stated, "What it will do is confuse and burden Kentucky’s justice system."

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$5,095,000.00
Opposition:	$0.00

Marsy's Law for Kentucky, LLC registered as a political issues committee (PIC) in support of the constitutional amendment. The PIC had received $5.10 million, with 100 percent of the funds from Henry Nicholas. The PIC had expended $5.05 million.

There were no committees registered in opposition to the measure.

Support

The following table includes contributions and expenditure totals for the LLC in support of the measure:

Committees in support of the Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Marsy's Law for Kentucky, LLC, PIC $5,095,000.00 $0.00 $5,047,562.01 Total $5,095,000.00 $0.00 $5,047,562.01

Totals in support Total raised: $5,095,000.00 Total spent: $5,047,562.01

Donors

The following were the donors who contributed to the support committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Henry Nicholas	$5,095,000.00	$0.00	$5,095,000.00

Media editorials

Support

• Bowling Green Daily News said, "Crime victims in the state of Kentucky have, for far too long, been nearly silenced by a system that doesn't give them much of a voice. But that could change when voters go the polls in November to weigh in on a proposed state constitutional amendment that would give crime victims equal constitutional protections ..."
• The State Journal said, "A vote for Marsy’s Law in November is one that ensures criminals don’t receive more rights than their victims."

Background

Kentucky Crime Victim Bill of Rights

In 1986, the Kentucky State Legislature passed legislation addressing the rights of crime victims. The legislation, which includes state Revised Statutes 421.500 to 421.575, became known as the Kentucky Crime Victim Bill of Rights (CVBR). As of 2018, the CVBR had been amended multiple times, including in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2006, 2008, and 2013. The Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment would create a constitutional amendment, not a statute like the existing CVBR.

As of 2018, the CVBR defined a crime victim as "an individual who suffers direct or threatened physical, financial, or emotional harm" as a result of specific crimes, including stalking, terroristic threatening, menacing, harassing communications, intimidating a witness, criminal homicide, rape, sexual abuse, kidnapping, robbery, and human trafficking, among others. The CVBR also defined crime victim to include parents, guardians, and custodians of minors and those who are legally incapacitated. It also provided provisions on who counts as a crime victim in cases where the victim is decreased.

The CVBR, according to the statute's text, provided the following statutory rights to crime victims:

• Victims shall receive information on crime victim compensation, treatment programs, the victim's participation in the criminal justice process.
• Victims shall receive information on the arrest of the accused and how to register for notifications on the accused's release from prison, jail, juvenile detention facility, or psychiatric facility.
• Victims shall receive information on how they may be protected from intimidation, harassment, and retaliation.
• State attorneys shall make a reasonable effort to promptly notify victims of scheduling changes that affect their appearances.
• State attorneys shall make a reasonable effort to provide prompt updates on judicial proceedings relating to their case.
• Victims have a right to submit a written victim impact statement to the court.

The CVBR was also designed to require a speedy trial for cases involving a victim less than 16 years old.

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.

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. 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.

In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.

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.

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%	21.55%	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%

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2016, the Kentucky State Legislature referred nine constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved eight and rejected one of the referred amendments. All of the amendments were referred to the ballot during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the ballot was one. The approval rate of referred amendments at the ballot box was 88.89 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 11.11 percent. The following table contains data for referred amendments during even-numbered election years from 1996 through 2016:

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2016
Total number	Approved	Percent approved	Defeated	Percent defeated	Even-year average	Even-year median	Even-year minimum	Even-year maximum
9	8	88.89%	1	11.11%	0.82	1.00	0	2

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Kentucky Constitution

In Kentucky, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a 60 percent vote in each house of the Kentucky State Legislature during one legislative session.

A bipartisan group of 25 state senators—19 Republicans and 6 Democrats—introduced the amendment into the state legislature as Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) on January 2, 2018. The Kentucky State Senate approved the amendment, 34 to 1 with three members not voting, on January 10, 2018. The one state senator to vote against the bill was Sen. John Schickel (R-11). Sen. Whitney Westerfield (R-3), a sponsor of the amendment in the state Senate, said he thought the measure "enjoys an enormous swell of support in the House."

On January 24, 2018, the Kentucky House of Representatives approved the amendment, 87 to 3 with eight members not voting. The state representatives to vote against referring the measure were Darryl Owens (D-43), Chad McCoy (R-50), and Arnold Simpson (D-65). There were two vacant seats at the time of the vote, meaning 66, rather than 67, votes were needed to pass SB 3.

As the constitutional amendment received at least a 60 percent vote in each chamber of the state legislature, Senate Bill 3 was referred to the ballot for voter consideration.

Vote in the Kentucky State Senate January 10, 2018
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 23  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	34	1	3
Total percent	89.47%	2.63%	7.90%
Democrat	10	0	1
Republican	24	1	2

Vote in the Kentucky House of Representatives January 24, 2018
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 66  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	87	3	8
Total percent	88.78%	3.06%	8.16%
Democrat	30	2	4
Republican	57	1	4

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure
Court: Franklin Circuit Court
Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers	Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system.	Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years."

  Source: Courier Journal

The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (KACDL) filed a lawsuit against the secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections on August 7, 2018. The KACDL stated, "Because this is a constitutional amendment, it would alter every other constitutional provision to which it is related. It would fundamentally skew the balance in our system of justice. It is designed to effectively remove the presumption of innocence.”

The state director of Marsy's Law for All, Ashlea Christiansen, said, “Marsy’s Law has been fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years and has overwhelming bipartisan support. I am absolutely confident that [KACDL] stand[s] alone — and will fail — in this effort to deny Kentucky victims of crime the equal rights they deserve.”

The Kentucky Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on February 8, 2018.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Kentucky

Poll times

In 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.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

According to the Kentucky State Board of Elections, in order to register to vote, a person must:

“

Be a U.S. citizen and a Kentucky resident for at least 28 days before the election. Non-U.S. citizens, including U.S. nationals do not qualify; Be at least 18 years old by the next General Election; Kentucky law allows qualified individuals to register at 17 years of age and be able to participate in a Primary Election if the individual will be 18 years old by the General Election; Not be a convicted felon (or, if convicted of a felony, my right to vote has been restored following an expungement, Executive Pardon, or Executive Order; Not have been judged mentally incompetent in a court of law and have voting rights removed; Not claim the right to vote outside Kentucky.

”

The deadline to submit a voter registration application is 29 days before an election, unless that day is a state or federal holiday. If mailed, applications must be postmarked by that deadline.

Voter registration applications may be completed online, mailed to the county clerk's office, or submitted in person at the county clerk's office.

Automatic registration

Kentucky does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Kentucky has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Kentucky does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Kentucky law requires 28 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Kentucky does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, "per KRS 119.025, any person who causes himself to be registered when he is not legally entitled to register, shall be subject to penalties including fines and/or a term of imprisonment not less than one (1) year nor more than (5) years."

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Voter Information Center site, run by the Kentucky State Board of Elections, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Kentucky requires voters to present identification while voting.

Voters can present the following forms of identification:

• Driver’s license
• Social Security card
• County issued identification card approved in writing by the State Board of Elections
• U.S. government-issued identification card
• Kentucky state government-issued identification card with a picture
• Any form of ID containing both picture and signature

If a precinct officer is a personal acquaintance of the voter, the voter does not have to produce identification.

Related measures

Law enforcement measures on the ballot in 2018
State	Measures
Washington	Washington Initiative 940: Police Training and Criminal Liability in Cases of Deadly Force Measure a
Georgia	Georgia Amendment 4: Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a
South Dakota	South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y, Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment a
Louisiana	Louisiana Amendment 4: No Dedication of Transportation Trust Fund Revenue to State Police Amendment a
Florida	Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment a
Ohio	Ohio Issue 1: Drug and Criminal Justice Policies Initiative d
Nevada	Nevada Question 1: Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment a
North Carolina	North Carolina Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment a
Oklahoma	Oklahoma State Question 794: Crime Victim Rights Amendment a

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot

Kentucky

• Kentucky ballot measures
• Kentucky ballot measure laws
• Marsy's Law crime victim rights

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Senate Bill 3