Tennessee Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2026)
Tennessee Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment | |
---|---|
Election date |
|
Topic Crime victims' rights and Criminal trials |
|
Status On the ballot |
|
Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
The Tennessee Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment is on the ballot in Tennessee as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2026.
A "yes" vote supports replacing the list of rights for victims of crimes in the constitution with a new list, including the right:
|
A "no" vote opposes removing the standing list of victims' rights in the constitution and replacing it. |
Overview
What is Marsy's Law?
Marsy's Law is named for Marsalee 'Marsy' Nicholas, a woman who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Efforts to institute Marsy's Law across the U.S. have been primarily backed by Henry Nicholas, Marsy's brother and co-founder of Broadcom Corporation. A week after Marsy's murder, Henry and his mother encountered her ex-boyfriend at a grocery store after he was released on bail; Henry and his mother were unaware of his release. In 2009, Henry founded Marsy's Law for All LLC, the national organization advocating for Marsy's Law.[1] The organization describes its mission in the following way: "Marsy’s Law for All seeks to amend state constitutions that don’t offer protections to crime victims and, eventually, the U.S. Constitution to give victims of crime rights equal to those already afforded to the accused and convicted."[2]
Different states have adopted varying versions of Marsy's Law, with some discrepancies in what rights are included. Marsy's Law generally includes the right to be notified of criminal proceedings, the right to be heard at proceedings, the right to be protected from the accused, the right to be notified of the release of the accused, and the right to have the safety of the victim and the general public considered when bail and release decisions are made.
Click here for more information about the history of Marsy’s Law ballot measures.
What are the existing victims' rights in the constitution?
Section 35 of Article I of the Tennessee Constitution contains a list of rights to which victims of crimes are entitled. That list includes the right to:
- confer with the prosecution;
- be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice system;
- be present at all proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present;
- be heard, when relevant, at all critical stages of the criminal justice process as defined by the General Assembly;
- be informed of all proceedings, and of the release, transfer or escape of the accused or convicted person;
- a speedy trial or disposition and a prompt and final conclusion of the case after the conviction or sentence;
- restitution from the offender; and
- be informed of each of the rights established for victims.
The amendment would delete Section 35 in its entirety and replace the list of victims' rights with a new list.
What other states passed Marsy's Law?
- See also: Marsy's Law in the states
As of 2024, 14 states had passed a ballot measure to institute a version of Marsy's Law. The first was California in 2008. Since then, voters approved Marsy's Law in Illinois (2014), Montana (2016), North Dakota (2016), South Dakota (2016), Ohio (2017), Florida (2018), Georgia (2018), Kentucky (2018), Nevada (2018), North Carolina (2018), Oklahoma (2018), Pennsylvania (2019), and Wisconsin (2020).
State courts in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Montana overturned the ballot measures, resulting in Marsy's Law not being adopted in those states. In 2020, Kentucky passed a version of Marsy's Law a second time when voters approved Constitutional Amendment 1.
Measure design
Click on the following sections for summaries of the different provisions of the amendment.[3]
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, Tennessee Constitution
The ballot measure would amend Section 35 of Article I of the Tennessee Constitution. The following underlined text would be added and struck-through text would be deleted:[3]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Section 35. To preserve and protect the rights of victims of crime to justice and due process, victims shall be entitled to the following basic rights:
Section 35a. The right to confer with the prosecution.
Section 35b. The right to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice system.
Section 35c. The right to be present at all proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present.
Section 35d. The right to be heard, when relevant, at all critical stages of the criminal justice process as defined by the General Assembly.
Section 35e. The right to be informed of all proceedings, and of the release, transfer or escape of the accused or convicted person.
Section 35f. The right to a speedy trial or disposition and a prompt and final conclusion of the case after the conviction or sentence.
Section 35g. The right to restitution from the offender.
Section 35h. The right to be informed of each of the rights established for victims.
The General Assembly has the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to define, implement, preserve and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section.
That to preserve and protect the rights of victims of crime to justice and due process throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim, as defined by law and which may be expanded by the General Assembly, shall have the following rights, which shall be protected:
(1) The right to be treated with fairness for the victim's safety and dignity;
(2) The right, upon request, to reasonable notice of all public criminal proceedings and all public juvenile delinquency proceedings involving the accused;
(3) The right to be present at all public criminal proceedings and all public juvenile delinquency proceedings involving the accused;
(4) The right upon request to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, and parole, as well as any public proceeding when relevant during which a right of the victim is implicated;
(5) The right to be heard and informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to 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;
(6) The right to be free from harassment, intimidation, and abuse throughout the criminal justice system, including reasonable protection, as defined by the General Assembly, from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused;
(7) The right, upon request, to reasonable notice of any release, transfer, or escape of the accused or convicted person;
(8) The right to full and timely restitution from the offender;
(9) The right to a speedy trial or disposition and a prompt and final conclusion of the case after the conviction or sentence;
(10) The right to be informed of the minimum sentence the offender will serve in custody and the scheduled release date;
(11) The right to have the safety of the victim, the victim's family, and the general public considered before any parole or other post-judgment release decision is made;
(12) The right, upon request, to confer with the prosecution; and
(13) The right to be fully informed of all rights afforded to crime victims.
A victim may assert the rights enumerated in this section, not as a party, but in the manner further provided by the General Assembly protecting the victim's right to standing. The General Assembly has the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to further define, implement, preserve, and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section. This section must be interpreted to preserve and protect the rights of all persons to due process. This section, or any law enacted under this section, does not create a basis for vacating a conviction. This section does not restrict the powers of the District Attorney General or the inherent authority of the court.
Other than as provided in the preceding paragraph, this section does not create a cause of action or claim for damages against the state or a political subdivision of the state; an officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its political subdivisions; or an officer or employee of the court. [6]
Full text
The full text of the ballot measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
Officials
- State Sen. John Stevens (R)
- Former State Rep. Patsy Hazlewood (R)
- House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R)
Arguments
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- State Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D)
Arguments
Campaign finance
- See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2026
Ballotpedia has not found any campaigns that have registered in support or opposition to this ballot measure.[7] If you are aware of a committee registered to support or oppose this measure, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Total | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Background
Marsy's Law across the country
- See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights
Ballotpedia has identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the first 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures. Henry Nicholas and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 91% — 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 approved 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 account 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% 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% 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% 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. While the measure received 74% of the vote, the results were never certified. The state Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that found the amendment violated the state’s separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments.[12]
In April 2020, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Wisconsin as Question 1. The amendment was approved with 74.9% voter approval. In November 2020, Kentucky voters again approved Marsy's Law when Amendment 1 received 63.4% approval.
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%[13] | 21.55%[13] | 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 |
Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Amendment | 2019 | 74.01% | 25.99% | Approved (Overturned) |
Wisconsin | Question 1 | 2020 | 74.90% | 25.10% | Approved |
Kentucky | Constitutional Amendment 1 | 2020 | 63.36% | 36.64% | Approved |
Average | 68.1% | 29.2% |
Transparency in Sentencing for Victims Act (2022)
During Tennessee's 2022 legislative session, State Rep. Cameron Sexton (R) introduced the Transparency in Sentencing for Victims Act (House Bill 2657). It was passed unanimously in both chambers. HB 2657 aimed to ensure fair and consistent sentencing for individuals convicted of criminal activity. It requires courts to put into public record their reasoning for the sentencing conditions, including enhancing and mitigating factors, and the estimated minimum amount of time the convicted individual will spend in confinement before becoming eligible for release.[14]
Path to the ballot
Amending the Tennessee Constitution
- See also: Amending the Tennessee Constitution
In Tennessee, the state Legislature must pass a constitutional amendment during two successive legislative sessions with an election in between. During the first legislative session, a simple majority vote is required in both legislative chambers. During the second legislative session, a two-thirds vote is required in both legislative chambers. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot. In Tennessee, amendments must be placed on general election ballots in which there is also a gubernatorial election.
The required legislative votes per session, assuming no vacancies, are listed below:
Requirements to refer constitutional amendments in Tennessee | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Session | Requirement | Senate | House | |||
First | Simple majority vote | 17 | 50 | |||
Second | Two-thirds vote | 22 | 66 |
House Joint Resolution 94 (2023-2024)
Former State Rep. Patsy Hazlewood (R-27) introduced the constitutional amendment into the Tennessee House of Representatives as House Joint Resolution 94 on January 30, 2023. The constitutional amendment moved through the legislature between January 30, 2023, and February 26, 2024.[15]
- April 21, 2023: Tennessee House of Representatives voted 92-0 to pass the amendment.
- February 22, 2024: Tennessee State Senate voted 27-3 to pass the amendment.
Votes Required to Pass: 50 | |||
Yes | No | NV | |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 92 | 0 | 1 |
Total % | 98.9% | 0.0% | 1.1% |
Democratic (D) | 20 | 0 | 1 |
Republican (R) | 72 | 0 | 0 |
Votes Required to Pass: 17 | |||
Yes | No | NV | |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 27 | 3 | 3 |
Total % | 81.8% | 9.1% | 9.1% |
Democratic (D) | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Republican (R) | 26 | 1 | 0 |
Senate Joint Resolution 9 (2025-2026)
State Sen. John Stevens (R-24) introduced the amendment as Senate Joint Resolution 9 on January 13, 2025. The constitutional amendment moved through the legislature between January 13 and April 21.[16]
- March 3, 2025: The Tennessee State Senate voted 27-5 to approve the amendment.
- April 21, 2025: The Tennessee House of Representatives voted 93-0 to approve the amendment.
Votes Required to Pass: 22 | |||
Yes | No | NV | |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 27 | 5 | 0 |
Total % | 84.3% | 15.6% | 0.0% |
Democratic (D) | 0 | 5 | 0 |
Republican (R) | 27 | 0 | 0 |
Votes Required to Pass: 66 | |||
Yes | No | NV | |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 93 | 0 | 0 |
Total % | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Democratic (D) | 21 | 0 | 0 |
Republican (R) | 72 | 0 | 0 |
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Tennessee
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Tennessee.
See also
View other measures certified for the 2026 ballot across the U.S. and in Tennessee.
Explore Tennessee's ballot measure history, including constitutional amendments.
Understand how measures are placed on the ballot and the rules that apply.
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Marsy's Law for All, "About Marsy's Law," accessed February 1, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Tennessee General Assembly, "Senate Joint Resolution 9 Full Text," accessed May 7, 2025
- ↑ Justia U.S. Law, "2024 Tennessee Code 40-38-203 - Part definitions," accessed May 28, 2025
- ↑ Justia U.S. Law, "Procedural Due Process Civil," accessed May 14, 2025
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Tennessee Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance, "Registered Referendum Committees 2025," accessed July 21, 2025
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Pennsylvania Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Degraffenreid - Ruling: Minority Opinion," December 21, 2021
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 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.
- ↑ Tennessee General Assembly, "House Bill 2657," accessed May 7, 2025
- ↑ Tennessee General Assembly, "HJR 0094," accessed April 22, 2025
- ↑ Tennessee General Assembly, "SJR 0009," accessed April 22, 2025
- ↑ LexisNexis, "Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-3-201," accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ LexisNexis, "Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-7-127," accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 Tennessee Secretary of State, "Register to Vote," accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Automatic Voter Registration," accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Same-Day Voter Registration," accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ Tennessee Secretary of State, "Tennessee Mail-In Application For Voter Registration," accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ LexisNexis, “Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-2-141,” accessed July 15, 2025
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 Tennessee Secretary of State, "What ID is required when voting?" accessed July 16, 2025
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Tennessee Secretary of State, "Guide on ID Requirements when voting," accessed July 16, 2025