New Hampshire Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018)
| New Hampshire Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The New Hampshire Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment did not qualify for the ballot in New Hampshire as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.
The measure would have added specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the New Hampshire Constitution.[1]
The specific constitutional rights would have included the right to be treated with fairness and due consideration for the victim’s safety, dignity, and privacy. Upon request, the victim would also have a right to be notified about and present at proceedings on the same basis as the accused; be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, or sentencing of the accused; to reasonable protection from the accused or persons acting on behalf of the accused; to be notified about release or escape of the accused; to refuse an unnecessary interview or deposition made by the accused; to full and timely restitution; to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case; to consult with the state's attorneys; and to be informed of the amendment's rights.[1]
The measure would have defined a crime victim as "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."[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title would have been as follows:[1]
| “ |
Are you in favor of amending the first part of the constitution by inserting after article 14 a new article to read as follows: [Art.] 14-a [Protection for Victims.] A victim of crime includes 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. A victim shall have the right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity, and privacy, and upon request: to reasonable and timely notice of, and to be present at all court proceedings, including post-conviction proceedings, on the same basis as the accused; to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case; to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process; to refuse an unnecessary interview or deposition request made by the accused; to confer with the attorney for the State about the disposition of the case; to be heard at any proceedings involving the release, plea, sentencing, or parole of the accused; to reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused; to full and timely restitution; and to be informed of all rights under this article. The term "victim" does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor, or incapacitated victim. 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.[2] |
” |
Constitutional changes
The measure would have added an Article 14 to Part First of the New Hampshire Constitution. The following text would have been added:[1]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Article 14-a. Protection for Victims.
[Art.] 14-a [Protection for Victims.] A victim of crime includes 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. A victim shall have the right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity, and privacy, and upon request: to reasonable and timely notice of, and to be present at all court proceedings, including post-conviction proceedings, on the same basis as the accused; to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case; to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process; to refuse an unnecessary interview or deposition request made by the accused; to confer with the attorney for the State about the disposition of the case; to be heard at any proceedings involving the release, plea, sentencing, or parole of the accused; to reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused; to full and timely restitution; and to be informed of all rights under this article. The term "victim" does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor, or incapacitated victim. 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.[2]
Support
Marsy’s Law for New Hampshire led the campaign in support of the measure.[3]
Officials
The following officials sponsored the amendment in the state legislature:[4]
- Sen. Bette Lasky (D-13)
- Sen. Bob Giuda (R-2)
- Sen. Chuck Morse (R-22)
- Sen. Dan Feltes (D-15)
- Sen. Daniel Innis (R-24)
- Sen. David Watters (D-4)
- Sen. Donna Soucy (D-18)
- Sen. Harold French (R-7)
- Sen. James Gray (R-6)
- Sen. Jay Kahn (D-10)
- Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-3)
- Sen. Jeff Woodburn (D-1)
- Sen. John Reagan (R-17)
- Sen. Kevin Avard (R-12)
- Sen. Kevin Cavanaugh (D-16)
- Sen. Lou D'Allesandro (D-20)
- Sen. Martha Fuller Clark (D-21)
- Sen. Martha Hennessey (D-5)
- Sen. Regina Birdsell (R-19)
- Sen. Ruth Ward (R-8)
- Sen. Sharon Carson (R-14)
- Sen. William Gannon (R-23)
- Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Carroll 1)
- Rep. John Burt (R-Hillsborough 39)
- Rep. Richard Hinch (R-Hillsborough 21)
- Rep. Shannon Chandley (D-Hillsborough 22)
- Rep. Stephen Shurtleff (D-Merrimack 11)
The following officials endorsed the ballot measure:
Organizations
- New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence[3]
Opposition
Organizations
- American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire[3]
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.[6][7]
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.[8] 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. [9]
In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.[10]
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.[11]
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%[12] | 21.55%[12] | 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 New Hampshire Constitution
In New Hampshire, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a 60 percent vote in each house of the New Hampshire General Court during one legislative session.
The constitutional amendment was introduced into the state legislature as Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 22 (CACR 22) on January 3, 2018.[4]
On March 22, 2018, the New Hampshire State Senate voted 20 to 3 with one senator not voting to pass the amendment. The state Senate amended the original CACR 22 to require victims to request the rights—besides the right to be treated with fairness and due consideration for the victim’s safety, dignity, and privacy—afforded under Marsy's Law. The state Senate also amended the original CACR 22 to only allow victims to refuse an interview or disposition requested by the accused if the interview or disposition is considered unnecessary.[4]
On April 26, 2018, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 284 to 51 to declare CACR 22 inexpedient, meaning the amendment was dead for the legislative session. Gov. Chris Sununu (R), a supporter of the amendment, responded to the state House's vote, saying, "Today’s vote saddens me. I’ve spent too much time with victims and their families to know that New Hampshire has missed an incredible opportunity to do what’s right."[13] Rep. Claire Rouillard (R-Hillsborough 6) said she voted against the amendment because "the words are unclear, the consequences immense." Rep. Paul Berch (D-Cheshire 1), who also voted against the amendment, said, "What the gentleman from California [Henry Nicholas] would have found if he had stepped out from behind his curtain is an ambiguous, poorly drafted, and in some parts contradictory constitutional amendment."[14]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 New Hampshire General Court, "Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 22," accessed March 23, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Concord Monitor, "New Hampshire Senate passes Marsy’s Law in a one-sided vote," March 22, 2018
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 New Hampshire General Court, "CACR 22 Overview," accessed March 23, 2018
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Governor of New Hampshire, "Marsy's Law: Let's Get This Done," January 15, 2018
- ↑ The Dickinson Press, "California man donates $1M to N.D. Marsy’s Law supporters; 44,000 signatures submitted to get measure on ballot," May 10, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Times, "North Dakota opponents to speak out against Marsy's Law," June 23, 2016
- ↑ Montana Supreme Court, "Opinion and Order," November 1, 2017
- ↑ Argus Leader, "What's at stake as voters again consider victims' rights amendment," May 18, 2019
- ↑ Toledo Blade, "Victims’ initiative passed to DeWine," January 25, 2017
- ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Marsy’s Law, says ballot wording was too vague," June 13, 2020
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 In Illinois, the amount of total votes in the overall election are used to determine whether a measure was approved or defeated. Using total votes, 72% voted 'yes', 20% voted 'no', and 8% did not vote on the measure. In order to compare and average results for Marsy's Law across states, 'yes' and 'no' percentages were calculated using total votes on the measure, rather than total votes in the election.
- ↑ New Hampshire Union Leader, "Marsy’s Law goes down in flames," April 26, 2018
- ↑ New Hampshire Public Radio, "Marsy's Law Constitutional Amendment Dies in N.H. House," April 26, 2018
 |
State of New Hampshire Concord (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
