Nevada Question 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018)

Elections in Nevada, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9 (mail), Oct. 16 (in-person), or Oct. 18 (online)
• Early voting: Oct. 20 - Nov. 2
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: No
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Lt. Gov • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State Assembly • Supreme court • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Nevada Question 1
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Nevada measuresNevada Question 1Nevada Question 2Nevada Question 3Nevada Question 4Nevada Question 5Nevada Question 6Submit

Nevada Question 1, the Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment, was on the ballot in Nevada as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. The measure was approved.

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

A "no" vote opposed this measure to add specific rights of crime victims to the state constitution beyond those added to the constitution in 1996.

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 »

Election results

Nevada Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		579,788	61.19%
No		367,686	38.81%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Amendment design

Question 1, according to the amendment's text, provided crime victims with specific rights, including the right to (a) be treated with fairness and respect and be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse throughout the criminal justice process; (b) be reasonably protected from the defendant; (c) have the safety of the victim and victim's family considered when setting bail; (d) prevent release of information the defendant could use to locate the victim; (e) refuse an interview or deposition unless under court order; (f) reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency; (g) reasonable notice of all public proceedings and be present at all public proceedings; (h) be reasonably heard at any public proceeding; (i) timely judgment of a case; (j) provide information to officers concerning the impact of the crime on the victim; (k) be informed of the conviction, sentence, incarceration, and release date of the defendant; (l) full and timely restitution; (m) prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence; (n) be informed of all post-conviction proceedings; (o) have the safety of the victim, the victim's family, and the public considered before any parole; (p) have restitution money first applied to the amount ordered to the victim; and (q) be informed of the rights in the amendment.

Crime victim rights in Nevada

Question 1 repealed and replaced Section 8(2) of Article I of the Nevada Constitution, a section addressing the rights of crime victims, with a version of a Marsy's Law. Voters passed a constitutional amendment, titled Question 2, adding Section 8(2) in 1996. Question 2 provided crime victims with a right to be informed of criminal proceedings related to the crime; be present at hearings during the critical stages of the proceedings; and be heard at proceedings for the sentencing or release of the convicted person.

Status of Marsy’s Law

Going into the election, six other states had ratified constitutional amendments known as Marsy's Law. The first of these states 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 North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Georgia also considered Marsy's Law amendments. The amendment is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove existng provisions that require the Legislature to provide certain statutory rights for crime victms; and (2) adopt in their place certain expressly stated constitutional rights that crime victms may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“ EXPLANATION—This ballot measure would amend the Nevada Constitution by: (1) removing existing provisions that require the Legislature to provide certain statutory rights for crime victims; and (2) replacing those existing provisions with a “Victims’ Bill of Rights” that would give crime victims certain expressly stated constitutional rights that they may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. This ballot measure is modeled on a similar ballot measure known as “Marsy’s Law” that California voters approved as an amendment to the California Constitution in 2008. However, the Legislature made several revisions in drafting Nevada’s ballot measure, and thus there are some differences between this ballot measure and California’s Marsy’s Law. In 1996, Nevada voters amended the Nevada Constitution to impose a constitutional duty on the Legislature to enact laws expressly providing for the following rights of crime victims that may be asserted personally or through a representative: (1) the right to be informed, upon written request, of the status or disposition of a criminal proceeding at any stage of the proceeding; (2) the right to be present at all public hearings involving the critical stages of a criminal proceeding; and (3) the right to be heard at all proceedings for the sentencing or release of a convicted person after trial. In accordance with the 1996 amendment, the Legislature has— throughout the past two decades—enacted and amended laws expressly providing for statutory rights of crime victims. This ballot measure would remove the constitutional provisions added in 1996 and replace them with new state constitutional rights that crime victims may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. This ballot measure defines a “victim” of crime as: (1) any person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a criminal offense under any law of this State; or (2) if the victim is less than 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or a representative of the victim’s estate, member of the victim’s family or any other person who is appointed by the court to act on the victim’s behalf, except that the court cannot appoint the criminal defendant as such a person. This ballot measure sets forth the following state constitutional rights that victims may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process: 1) the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s privacy and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse; 2) the right to be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant; 3) the right to have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered as a factor in fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the defendant; 4) the right to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant which could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family; 5) the right to refuse an interview or deposition request, unless under court order, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents; 6) the right to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding the case; 7) the right to the timely disposition of the case following the arrest of the defendant; 8) the right to reasonable notice of all public proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other postconviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings; 9) the right to be reasonably heard, upon request, at any public proceeding in any court involving release or sentencing, and at any parole proceeding; 10) the right to provide information to any public officer or employee conducting a presentence investigation concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family and any sentencing recommendations before the sentencing of the defendant; 11) the right to full and timely restitution and to have all monetary payments, money and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim; 12) the right to the prompt return of legal property when no longer needed as evidence; 13) the right to be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant and the release of or the escape by the defendant from custody; 14) the right to be informed of all postconviction proceedings, to participate and provide information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the defendant and to be notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the defendant; 15) the right to have the safety of the victim, the victim’s family and the general public considered before any parole or other postjudgment release decision is made; and 16) the right to be specifically informed of these constitutional rights and to have information concerning these constitutional rights be made available to the general public. This ballot measure also provides that the granting of these constitutional rights to victims must not be interpreted to deny or disparage other rights possessed by victims, and this ballot measure authorizes the Legislature to enact any necessary or useful laws to secure to victims the benefit of these constitutional rights. This ballot measure also provides that a victim has standing to assert these constitutional rights in any court with jurisdiction over the case and that the court must promptly rule on the victim’s request, but the victim is not given the status of a party in a criminal proceeding. The victim also may bring a lawsuit to compel a public officer or employee to carry out any duty required by this ballot measure or any law enacted thereto. However, no victim or other person may maintain any other lawsuit against this State or any public officer or employee for damages or certain other judicial relief as a result of a violation of this ballot measure or any law enacted thereto. This ballot measure also states that the defendant does not have standing to assert the rights of any victims, and no violation of this ballot measure or any law enacted thereto authorizes setting aside the defendant’s conviction. This ballot measure also states that it does not alter the powers, duties or responsibilities of a prosecuting attorney. Finally, this ballot measure states that, in addition to the constitutional right given to victims to be heard at the defendant’s parole hearing, the parole authority must extend the constitutional right to be heard at a parole hearing to any person harmed by the defendant. A “Yes” vote would remove existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution that require the Legislature to provide certain statutory rights for crime victims and would replace those existing provisions with new state constitutional rights that crime victims may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. A “No” vote would keep existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution that require the Legislature to provide certain statutory rights for crime victims and would not change those existing statutory rights that crime victims may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. DIGEST—This ballot measure would remove existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution that require the Legislature to provide certain statutory rights for crime victims and would replace those existing provisions with new state constitutional rights that crime victims may assert throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process. By creating these new constitutional rights, this ballot measure would add to or change existing laws as summarized below. This ballot measure also would decrease public revenue because: (1) it entitles crime victims to full and timely restitution; and (2) it further provides that all monetary payments, money and property collected from a person ordered to pay such restitution must be applied first to pay all victims, which means that until all victims receive full and timely restitution, the State and local governments may not receive assessments, fees, fines, forfeitures and other charges that the person ordered to pay such restitution may legally owe to those governmental entities. As required by existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution, the Legislature has enacted and amended existing laws expressly providing for statutory rights of crime victims. For purposes of those existing laws, the Legislature has generally defined the term “victim” as: (1) a person against whom a crime has been committed or who has been injured or killed as a direct result of the commission of a crime; and (2) certain relatives of such a victim. Under this ballot measure, the term “victim” is defined as: (1) any person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a criminal offense under any law of this State; or (2) if the victim is less than 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or a representative of the victim’s estate, member of the victim’s family or any other person who is appointed by the court to act on the victim’s behalf, except that the court cannot appoint the criminal defendant as such a person. The definition of “victim” in this ballot measure is similar to the definition of “crime victim” used in existing federal law commonly known as the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004. Existing laws give victims statutory rights that may be enforced in court actions against public officers or employees who fail to perform any duty arising under those laws. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights that may be enforced in court actions against public officers or employees who fail to perform any duty arising under this ballot measure or any laws enacted thereto. This ballot measure also would give victims standing to assert their rights in any court with jurisdiction over the case and require the court to promptly rule on their requests. However, this ballot measure would not give victims the status of a party in a criminal proceeding, and no victim or other person may maintain any other lawsuit against this State or any public officer or employee for damages or certain other judicial relief as a result of a violation of this ballot measure or any law enacted thereto. Existing laws give victims statutory rights intended to protect their privacy and dignity, protect them from intimidation, harassment and abuse, protect them from the defendant and persons acting on the defendant’s behalf and protect the confidentiality of their personal information. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims the following new state constitutional rights: (1) to be treated with fairness and with respect for their privacy and dignity; (2) to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse; (3) to be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on the defendant’s behalf; and (4) to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant which could be used to locate or harass victims or their families. Existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution entitle the defendant, before conviction, to be released on bail except for certain capital offenses or murders. Under existing laws, when the court sets the amount of bail and determines whether to impose conditions on the defendant’s release, the court considers several factors, including whether the defendant’s release would pose any danger to victims, other persons and the community. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights to have the safety of victims and their families considered as a factor in fixing the amount of the defendant’s bail and any release conditions. Existing laws do not require victims, without their consent, to participate in interviews or deposition requests during the criminal or juvenile justice process, unless they are under a court order. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights to refuse interviews or deposition requests during the criminal or juvenile justice process, unless they are under a court order, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any interviews to which they consent. Existing laws require the prosecutor to take certain actions to notify and inform victims regarding the case against the defendant and to protect victims from intimidation, harassment and abuse. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights to reasonably confer with the prosecutor, upon request, regarding the case against the defendant. However, this ballot measure would not alter the powers, duties or responsibilities of the prosecutor. Existing laws allow the court to consider whether victims will be adversely impacted by requested continuances, postponements or other delays during the criminal or juvenile justice process. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights to the timely disposition of the case following the defendant’s arrest. Existing laws require victims’ property to be returned promptly when the property is no longer needed as evidence. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights to the prompt return of legal property when the property is no longer needed as evidence. Existing laws give victims statutory rights to receive notice, attend, participate, provide information and be heard during certain stages of the criminal or juvenile justice process. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims the following new state constitutional rights: (1) to reasonable notice of all public proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other postconviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings; (2) to be reasonably heard, upon request, at any public proceeding in any court involving release or sentencing, and at any parole proceeding; (3) to provide information to any public officer or employee conducting a presentence investigation concerning the impact of the offense on the victims and their families and any sentencing recommendations before the defendant’s sentencing; (4) to be informed, upon request, of the defendant’s conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition, the defendant’s scheduled release date and the defendant’s release or escape from custody; and (5) to be informed of all postconviction proceedings, to participate and provide information to the parole authority to be considered before the defendant’s parole and to be notified, upon request, of the defendant’s parole or other release. This ballot measure also would require the parole authority to extend the constitutional right to be heard at a parole hearing to any person harmed by the defendant. Existing laws provide that when determining whether to release the defendant on parole, the parole authority must consider several factors, including any potential threat to society posed by the defendant’s release and any documents or testimony submitted by victims. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights to have the safety of victims, their families and the general public considered before any parole or other postjudgment release decision is made. Existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution provide that all fines collected under the criminal laws of this State are pledged for educational purposes. Under existing laws, the defendant may be ordered or required to pay assessments, fees, fines, forfeitures and other charges to the State and local governments and restitution to victims. This ballot measure would change those existing laws by: (1) giving victims new state constitutional rights to full and timely restitution; and (2) requiring that all monetary payments, money and property collected from a person ordered to pay such restitution must be applied first to pay all victims, which means that until all victims receive full and timely restitution, the State and local governments may not receive their assessments, fees, fines, forfeitures and other charges that the person ordered to pay such restitution may legally owe to those governmental entities. Finally, existing laws require victims to be provided with certain information regarding their statutory rights. This ballot measure would add to those existing laws by giving victims new state constitutional rights to be specifically informed of their constitutional rights and to have information concerning those rights be made available to the general public. ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 1, Nevada Constitution

The measure amended Section 8 of Article 1 and added a Section 23 to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. The following struck-through text was deleted and underlined text was added: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Sec. 23. 1. Each person who is the victim of a crime is entitled to the following rights:

(a) To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process.

(b) To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.

(c) To have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered as a factor in fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the defendant.

(d) To prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant which could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family.

(e) To refuse an interview or deposition request, unless under court order, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.

(f) To reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding the case.

(g) To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other postconviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings.

(h) To be reasonably heard, upon request, at any public proceeding, including any delinquency proceeding, in any court involving release or sentencing, and at any parole proceeding.

(i) To the timely disposition of the case following the arrest of the defendant.

(j) To provide information to any public officer or employee conducting a presentence investigation concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family and any sentencing recommendations before the sentencing of the defendant.

(k) To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant and the release of or the escape by the defendant from custody.

(l) To full and timely restitution.

(m) To the prompt return of legal property when no longer needed as evidence.

(n) To be informed of all postconviction proceedings, to participate and provide information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the offender and to be notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the offender.

(o) To have the safety of the victim, the victim’s family and the general public considered before any parole or other postjudgment release decision is made.

(p) To have all monetary payments, money and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim.

(q) To be specifically informed of the rights enumerated in this section, and to have information concerning those rights be made available to the general public.

2. A victim has standing to assert the rights enumerated in this section in any court with jurisdiction over the case. The court shall promptly rule on a victim’s request. A defendant does not have standing to assert the rights of his or her victim. This section does not alter the powers, duties or responsibilities of a prosecuting attorney. A victim does not have the status of a party in a criminal proceeding.

3. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, no person may maintain an action against this State or any public officer or employee for damages or injunctive, declaratory or other legal or equitable relief on behalf of a victim of a crime as a result of a violation of this section or any statute enacted by the Legislature pursuant thereto. No such violation authorizes setting aside a conviction.

4. A person may maintain an action to compel a public officer or employee to carry out any duty required by this section or any statute enacted by the Legislature pursuant thereto.

5. The granting of these rights to victims must not be construed to deny or disparage other rights possessed by victims. A parole authority shall extend the right to be heard at a parole hearing to any person harmed by the offender.

6. The Legislature shall by law provide any other measure necessary or useful to secure to victims of crime the benefit of the rights set forth in this section.

7. As used in this section, “victim” means any person directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a criminal offense under any law of this State. If the victim is less than 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated or deceased, the term includes the legal guardian of the victim or a representative of the victim’s estate, member of the victim’s family or any other person who is appointed by the court to act on the victim’s behalf, except that the court shall not appoint the defendant as such a person.

...

Sec. 8. 1. No person shall be tried for a capital or other infamous crime (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases of the militia when in actual service and the land and naval forces in time of war, or which this State may keep, with the consent of Congress, in time of peace, and in cases of petit larceny, under the regulation of the Legislature) except on presentment or indictment of the grand jury, or upon information duly filed by a district attorney, or Attorney General of the State, and in any trial, in any court whatever, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person, and with counsel, as in civil actions. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself.

2. The Legislature shall provide by law for the rights of victims of crime, personally or through a representative, to be:

(a) Informed, upon written request, of the status or disposition of a criminal proceeding at any stage of the proceeding;

(b) Present at all public hearings involving the critical stages of a criminal proceeding; and

(c) Heard at all proceedings for the sentencing or release of a convicted person after trial.

3. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, no person may maintain an action against the State or any public officer or employee for damages or injunctive, declaratory or other legal or equitable relief on behalf of a victim of a crime as a result of a violation of any statute enacted by the Legislature pursuant to subsection 2. No such violation authorizes setting aside a conviction or sentence or continuing or postponing a criminal proceeding.

4. A person may maintain an action to compel a public officer or employee to carry out any duty required by the Legislature pursuant to subsection 2.

5. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

6. 3. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been first made, or secured, except in cases of war, riot, fire, or great public peril, in which case compensation shall be afterward made.

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 secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 23, and the FRE is 6. The word count for the ballot title is 44, and the estimated reading time is 11 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 20, and the FRE is 17. The word count for the ballot summary is 2,676, and the estimated reading time is 713 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 Nevada supported the measure.

Supporters

Sponsors

The following legislators sponsored the amendment in the state legislature:

• Sen. Michael Roberson (R-20)
• Sen. Becky Harris (R-9)
• Sen. Patricia Farley (I-8)
• Sen. Joseph Hardy (R-12)
• Sen. James Settelmeyer (R-17)

Officials

• Gov. Brian Sandoval (R)
• Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt (R)

Municipalities

• North Las Vegas City Council

Opposition

Jeanne Hruska, Policy Director, ACLU of New Hampshire, argued that the Marsy's Law crime victim rights model impedes the principle of due process, potentially violates the rights of defendants, and could have unintended consequences. Excerpts from Hruska's article are as follows:

“ Though well intended, the Marsy’s Law formula is poorly drafted and is a threat to existing constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions guarantee defendants’ rights because they are rights against the state, not because they are valued more by society than victims’ rights. Defendants’ rights only apply when the state is attempting to deprive the accused – not the victim – of life, liberty, or property. Victims’ rights are not rights against the state. Instead, they are rights against another individual. [...] In fact, many of the provisions in Marsy’s Law could actually strengthen the state’s hand against a defendant, undermining a bedrock principle of our legal system — the presumption of innocence. This risk further underscores one of the overarching concerns about Marsy’s Law: It pits victims’ rights against defendants’ rights. Creating such a conflict means that defendants’ rights may lose in certain circumstances. [...] In other words, the chances that an innocent person could be convicted of a crime they did not commit could potentially increase. The proponents of Marsy’s Law may not intend for this outcome, but nothing in their formula prevents it. [...] Many states have enshrined language that is unique to their state and that works with their statutes. By contrast, Marsy’s Law is in no way tailored to any one state’s existing laws. Put simply, the Marsy’s Law formula amounts to a constitutional experiment for any state that adopts it. This experimental “model law” is so expansive and ambiguous, it is impossible to know how courts would interpret it or what its impact would be in any one state. For instance, Marsy’s Law includes a constitutional right to privacy for victims, yet it is impossible to know what that right would encompass in practice. [...] To oppose Marsy’s Law is not to oppose victims’ rights. Rather, it is to oppose the highly problematic formula that is Marsy’s Law. There are many ways that states could better support crime victims. ”

If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$9,284,254.19
Opposition:	$0.00

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Nevada ballot measures

There was one political action committee, Marsy's Law for Nevada LLC, registered to support the measure. The committee had raised $9.28 million, with $8.35 million from the Marsy's Law for All Foundation and $680,000 from Henry Nicholas. The committee had expended $9.03 million.

There were no political action committees registered to oppose the ballot measure.

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Question 1 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Marsy's Law for Nevada LLC $9,282,754.19 $1,500.00 $9,029,284.47 Total $9,282,754.19 $1,500.00 $9,029,284.47

Totals in support Total raised: $9,284,254.19 Total spent: $9,030,784.47

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to Marsy's Law for Nevada LLC:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Marsy's Law for All Foundation	$8,350,000.00	$0.00	$8,350,000.00
Henry Nicholas	$680,000.00	$0.00	$680,000.00

Reporting dates

In Nevada, ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:

Campaign finance reporting dates for November 2018 ballot
Date	Report	Period
January 15, 2018	Annual Report for 2017	1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017
May 22, 2018	Report #1	1/1/2018 - 5/18/2018
June 8, 2018	Report #2	5/19/2018 - 6/7/2018
October 16, 2018	Report #3	6/8/2018 - 10/12/2018
November 2, 2018	Report #4	10/13/2018 - 11/1/2018
January 16, 2018	Annual Report for 2018	1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

Voting on Law Enforcement
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

Nevada Question 2

See also: Nevada Crime Victim Rights, Question 2 (1996)

In 1996, 74.3 percent of voters approved Question 2, which added Section 8(2) of Article I to the Nevada Constitution. Section 8(2) was designed to address the rights of crime victims.

Question 2 provided crime victims with three state constitutional rights, including:

(a) the right to be informed of criminal proceedings related to the crime;

(b) the right to be present at hearings during the critical stages of the proceedings; and

(c) the right to be heard at proceedings for the sentencing or release of the convicted person.

The measure prevented individuals from using the amendment to bring a lawsuit based on the violation of the three rights.

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 state legislature referred 30 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 14 and rejected 16 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 between two and three. The approval rate of referred amendments at the ballot box was 46.7 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 53.3 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
30	14	46.67%	16	53.33%	2.73	2.00	0	7

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Nevada Constitution

In Nevada, a majority vote is required in two successive sessions of the Nevada State Legislature to place an amendment on the ballot. Legislative sessions are biennial and occur during odd-numbered years in Nevada.

2015 legislative session

The proposed amendment was introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 17 (SJR 17). On, April 15, 2015, the Nevada Senate approved SJR 11, with 15 senators voting yea and six voting nay. The Nevada State Assembly approved SJR 17 on May 22, 2015, with 41 representatives in support and one against. On May 30, 2016, the first approval of SJR 17 was enrolled with the secretary of state's office.

Vote in the Nevada State Senate April 15, 2015
Requirement: SImple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 11  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	15	6	0
Total percent	71.43%	28.57%	0.00%
Democrat	4	6	0.00
Republican	11	0	0

Vote in the Nevada State Assembly May 22, 2015
Requirement: SImple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 22  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	41	1	0
Total percent	97.62%	2.38%	0.00%
Democrat	16	1	0
Republican	25	0	0

2017 legislative session

On February 6, 2017, the secretary of state returned the amendment to the legislature. SJR 17 passed the Senate, with all 21 senators voting in favor, on April 17, 2017. On May 26, 2017, the Nevada State Assembly voted to amend SJR 17 with the following provision:

In interpreting and applying the provisions of this section, a court may balance the rights of the victim set forth in this section against the needs of society for effective, efficient and orderly judicial administration of the criminal or juvenile justice process.

As the state Assembly amended the bill, the measure could not have appeared on the ballot in 2018. If a constitutional amendment is amended after its first session vote, then the process of referring a constitutional amendment to the ballot starts over. Both chambers of the state legislature would have needed to approve the constitutional amendment again during the 2019 legislative session to refer the measure to the 2020 ballot.

On May 26, 2017, the state Assembly approved the amendment 41 to 0 with one member excused from voting. As SJR 17 was amended, the bill was returned to the Senate for a concurrence vote. On May 31, 2017, the Senate refused to concur with the Assembly's amendment. On June 3, 2017, the Assembly refused to rescind the amendment from the bill. A conference committee was appointed on June 4, 2017. On the last day of the 2017 legislative session, June 5, the conference committee recommended that the Assembly approve the bill without the amendment. On June 5, 2017, both chambers of the legislature adopted the conference committee's recommendation. As the version without the amendment was adopted, the measure was put on the 2018 ballot.

Vote in the Nevada State Senate April 17, 2017
Requirement: SImple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 11  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	21	0	0
Total percent	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Democrat	11	0	0
Republican	9	0	0
Independent	1	0	0

Vote in the Nevada State Assembly May 26, 2017
Requirement: SImple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions
Number of yes votes required: 22  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	41	0	1
Total percent	97.62%	0.00%	2.38%
Democrat	27	0	0
Republican	14	0	1

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Nevada

Poll times

All polling places in Nevada are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Nevada, each applicant must be must a citizen of the United States, a resident of Nevada for at least 30 days before the election, and at least 18 years old by the day of the election.

Seventeen-year-olds can preregister to vote. Anyone who has been declared mentally incompetent by a court may not register to vote.

A voter registration application can be completed in person at the county clerk’s office, the Department of Motor Vehicles, other social service agencies, or college campuses. In-person registration must be completed 28 days before regular elections; registration forms submitted by mail must be postmarked by the same day. Online applications must be submitted by the Thursday before regular elections.

Nevada also allows same-day registration.

Automatic registration

See also: Automatic voter registration

Nevada automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

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

Same-day registration

See also: Same-day voter registration

Nevada allows same-day voter registration at polling places during early voting and on election day.

Residency requirements

In order to register to vote in Nevada, applicants must be a resident of the state for at least 30 days prior to the election.

Verification of citizenship

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

Nevada does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

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 Nevada Secretary of State’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Nevada does not require voters to present identification while voting, in most cases. A voter in Nevada must sign their name in the election board register at his or her polling place. The signature is compared with the signature on the voter's original application to vote or another form of identification, such as a driver's license, a state identification card, military identification, or another government-issued ID.

State profile

Demographic data for Nevada
	Nevada	U.S.
Total population:	2,883,758	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	109,781	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	69%	73.6%
Black/African American:	8.4%	12.6%
Asian:	7.7%	5.1%
Native American:	1.1%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.6%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.4%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	27.5%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	85.1%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	23%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$51,847	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	17.8%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Nevada. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Nevada

Nevada voted for the Democratic candidate in four out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More Nevada coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Nevada
• United States congressional delegations from Nevada
• Public policy in Nevada
• Endorsers in Nevada
• Nevada fact checks
• More...

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
Kentucky	Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment ot
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
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
• Civil and criminal trials on the ballot

Nevada

• Nevada ballot measures
• Nevada ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

Amendment

• Senate Joint Resolution 17

Support

• Marsy's Law - Nevada
• Marsy's Law for Nevada on Facebook
• Marsy's Law for Nevada on Twitter

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Nevada 2018 Marsy's Law Amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Nevada Question 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018) - Google News