Mississippi Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (March 2020)

Mississippi Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment
Election date March 10, 2020
Topic Law enforcement
Status Not on the ballot
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Mississippi measuresBallot Measure 1 (Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A)Ballot Measure 2Ballot Measure 3Submit

The Mississippi Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment was not on the ballot in Mississippi as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on March 10, 2020.

Overview

Measure design

The measure would have provided crime victims with specific rights, including the right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect; the right (upon request) to be notified of and be present at all proceedings involving the accused; the right to be heard at any proceedings involving the accused; and the right to be informed of their rights.

The Status of Marsy's Law in the United States

Henry Nicholas, founder of Marsy's Law for All, funded Marsy's law efforts in six states in 2018 (Nevada, Florida, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Georgia, and North Carolina), all of which approved the measure. Marsy's Law was named after Henry Nicholas's sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Henry Nicholas was behind legislative proposals for the law in Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, and other states. Five other states have a Marsy's Law constitutional amendment—California, Ohio, Illinois, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Montana passed Marsy's Law, but it was later overturned.

Text of measure

Ballot summary

The ballot explanation for the amendment would have appeared as follows:

“

This proposed constitutional amendment provides certain rights for victims 68 throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Mississippi Constitution

The measure would have added a new section to the Mississippi Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section __ . (1) To preserve and protect justice and due process for victims throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim shall have the following rights which shall be protected in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused:

(a) To be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity and privacy;

(b) Upon request, to reasonable and timely notice of, and to be present at, all public proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct;

(c) To be heard in any public proceeding involving the criminal or delinquent conduct;

(d) To be heard in any public proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole, and any public proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated;

(e) To reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused;

(f) To reasonable notice, upon request, of any release or escape of an accused;

(g) To refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused;

(h) To full and timely restitution;

(i) To proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case;

(j) To confer with the attorney for the government upon request; and

(k) To be informed of all rights enumerated in this section.

(2) The victim, the victim's attorney or other lawful representative, or the attorney for the government, upon request of the victim, may assert in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority, with jurisdiction over the case, and have enforced, the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law. The court or other authority with jurisdiction shall act promptly on such a request. This section does not create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the state, any political subdivision of the state, any officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of the court.

(3) Law enforcement officers who become victims of crime in the course of performing their public duties are entitled to the same rights as other victims of crime; however, their identity and the circumstances of the crime may continue to be disclosed as otherwise provided by law.

(4) As used in this section, "victim" means any person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act. The term "victim" does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interest of a deceased, incompetent, minor, or incapacitated victim.

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.

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%

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Mississippi Constitution

In Mississippi, for a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to be certified for the ballot, two-thirds of each house of the Mississippi State Legislature must vote to put it there. The absolute number of those voting in favor must be equal to at least a majority of the members elected to each house.

This amendment was introduced as House Concurrent Resolution 47 on January 21, 2019. The measure was passed in the House on February 13, 2019, in a vote of 84 to 33 with two Democratic Representatives— Bob Evans (91st District) and David Myers (98th District) —not voting. All 73 House Republicans voted yes.

The measure failed to garner a two-thirds (66.67%) vote in the Senate on March 13, 2019.

Vote in the Mississippi House of Representatives February 13, 2019
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of those present in each chamber, provided the vote is a majority of all members
Number of yes votes required: 78  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	84	33	2
Total percent	68.85%	27.05%	1.64%
Democrat	11	33	2
Republican	73	0	0

Vote in the Mississippi State Senate March 13, 2019
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of those present in each chamber, provided the vote is a majority of all members
Number of yes votes required: 35  d
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	33	17	2
Total percent	63.46%	32.69%	3.84%
Democrat	2	17	0
Republican	31	0	2

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot

Mississippi

• Mississippi ballot measures
• Mississippi ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• House Concurrent Resolution 47