Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Oklahoma Crime Victim Rights Amendment, HJR 1002 (2018)
| Oklahoma Crime Victim Rights Amendment, HJR 1002 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The Oklahoma Crime Victim Rights Amendment, also known as HJR 1002, was not on the ballot in Oklahoma as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.
The measure would have amended Section 34 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution, a section addressing the rights of crime victims, with a version of a Marsy's Law.
The amendment would have provided crime victims with specific rights, such as the right to be notified about and present at proceedings; to be heard at proceedings involving that release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole of the accused; to be reasonably protected from the accused; to be notified about the release or escape of the accused; to refuse an interview or disposition at the request of the accused; and to receive restitution from the individual who committed the criminal offense.[1]
An amendment, SJR 46, similar in substance to HJR 1002 was introduced into the Senate. The differences between HJR 1002 and SJR 46 were (a) formatting and (b) whether other rights of crime victims are granted, as stated in HJR 1002, or guaranteed, as stated in SJR 46, by the state legislature. Both chambers of the legislature passed SJR 46, referring that amendment to the ballot.
Text of measure
Gist of the proposition
The gist of the proposition was as follows:[1]
| “ | This measure amends the State Constitution. This measure addresses the justice and due process rights of victims. The changes to this section will make clear what types of rights victims have under the laws of this state. It will allow victims to enforce these rights when necessary. Changes to this section also make clear that a cause of action for compensation or damages may not be made when seeking to enforce these rights. It would also clarify the authority to pass procedural and substantive laws to preserve and protect the rights of victims.[2] | ” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article II, Oklahoma Constitution
The proposed amendment would have amended Section 34 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted:[1]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
A. To preserve and protect the rights of secure for victims to justice and due process, and ensure that victims are throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim shall have the following rights, which shall be protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused:
- 1. To be treated with fairness
,and respect for the safety, dignity,andare free from intimidation, harassment, or abuse, throughout the criminal justice process, any victim or family member of a victim of a crime has the right to know the status of the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case, including all proceedings wherein a disposition of a case is likely to occur, and where plea negotiations may occur. The victim or family member of a victim of a crime has the right to know the location of the defendant following an arrest, during a prosecution of the criminal case, during a sentence to probation or confinement, and when there is any release or escape of the defendant from confinement. The victim or family member of a victim of a crime has a right to be present at any proceeding where the defendant has a right to be present, to be heard at any sentencing or parole hearing, to be awarded restitution by the convicted person for damages or losses as determined and ordered by the court,privacy of the victim; - 2. Upon request, to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present at all proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct;
- 3. To be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is at issue;
- 4. To reasonable protection;
- 5. Upon request, to reasonable notice of any release or escape of an accused;
- 6. To refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused;
- 7. To full and timely restitution;
- 8. To proceedings free from unreasonable delay and prompt conclusion of the case;
- 9. Upon request, to confer with the attorney for the government; and
to - 10. To be informed
by the state of the constitutionalof all rightsof the victimenumerated in this subsection.
B. An exercise of any right by a victim or family member of a victim or the failure to provide a victim or family member of a victim any right granted by this section shall not be grounds for dismissing any criminal proceeding or setting aside any conviction or sentence The victim, or the attorney for the victim or other lawful representative or the attorney for the government, upon request of the victim, may assert and have enforced in any trial court, appellate court or other authority with jurisdiction over the case 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 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.
C. The Legislature, or the people by initiative or referendum, has have the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to define, further implement, preserve and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section, including the authority to extend any of these rights to juvenile proceedings and if enacted by the Legislature, youthful offender proceedings.
D. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights for victims shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights granted by the Legislature or retained by victims.[2]
Support
Marsy's Law for Oklahoma supported the measure.[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.[4][5]
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.[6] 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. [7]
In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.[8]
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.[9]
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%[10] | 21.55%[10] | 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 Oklahoma Constitution
In Oklahoma, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a simple majority vote in each house of the state legislature during one legislative session.
The amendment was introduced on January 17, 2017, as House Joint Resolution 1002. On February 21, 2017, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 90 to 5 to approve the amendment. Five representatives were excused from voting, and one seat was vacant. The measure did not receive a floor vote in the Oklahoma Senate.[11]
House vote
February 21, 2017[11]
| Oklahoma HJR 1002 House Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 90 | 94.74% | ||
| No | 5 | 5.26% | ||
| Partisan breakdown of House votes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party Affiliation | Yes | No | Excused | Total |
| Democrat | 20 | 5 | 1 | 26 |
| Republican | 70 | 0 | 4 | 74 |
| Total | 90 | 5 | 5 | 100 |
See also
External links
Amendment
Support
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oklahoma Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1002," accessed February 22, 2017
- ↑ 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 - ↑ Marsy's Law, "Marsy's Law for Oklahoma Kicks Off Statewide Campaign," February 1, 2017
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 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.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Oklahoma Legislature, "HJR 1002 Overview," accessed February 22, 2017
 |
State of Oklahoma Oklahoma City (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 |
