Idaho Crime Victim Rights Amendment (2018)
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 4 min
| Idaho Crime Victim Rights Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Law enforcement | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The Idaho Crime Victim Rights Amendment was not on the ballot in Idaho as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.
The measure would have made changes to Section 22 of Article I of the Idaho Constitution, which addresses the rights of crime victims. The measure would have provided crime victims with rights to (a) reasonable and timely notification of criminal justice proceedings; (b) reasonable and timely notification of an escape or absconsion from probation or parole; (c) full and timely restitution for economic loses; (d) a reasonable and timely opportunity to read presentence reports; and (e) reasonable protection from the accused.[1]
The measure would have also defined criminal justice proceeding and crime victim in the Idaho Constitution.[1]
The amendment was a version of a Marsy's Law.[2]
Text of measure[edit]
Ballot title[edit]
The ballot title would have been as follows:[1]
| “ | Shall Section 22, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide equal rights to crime victims, including the right to notification of court proceedings, reasonable protection from the accused, and a voice in the criminal justice process?[3] | ” |
Constitutional changes[edit]
- See also: Article I, Idaho Constitution
The proposed amendment would have amended Section 22 of Article I of the Idaho Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted:[1]
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
Rights of Crime Victims (A) A crime victim (1) To be treated with fairness, respect, dignity and privacy (2) To timely disposition of the case. (3) To reasonable and timely prior notification of (4) To be present (5) To (6) To be heard, upon request, at all criminal justice proceedings considering a plea of guilty, sentencing, incarceration or release of the defendant, unless manifest injustice would result. (7) To full and timely restitution (8) To refuse an interview, ex parte contact, or other request by the (9) To a reasonable and timely opportunity to read the presentence reports relating to the crime. (10) To reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused. (11) To the same rights in juvenile proceedings (B) As used in this section, "criminal justice proceeding" means trial court, appellate and post-conviction proceedings, including acceptance of a plea of guilty, sentencing, parole proceedings, parole discharge, change in probation status, commutation, pardon, post-arrest and post-conviction release, and any proceeding during which a right of the crime victim is implicated, but shall not include ex parte proceedings. (C) In the criminal justice proceedings, the crime victim, the crime victim's attorney, or other lawful representative, or the at torney for the government upon request of the crime victim, may assert and seek enforcement of the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the crime victim by law, which shall be acted upon promptly. (D) As used in this section, a "crime victim" shall include any person or entity directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving physical injury, threatened physical injury or a sexual offense, or a person or entity against whom such an offense is committed and may be further expanded in law. (E) Nothing in this section is intended to, or shall be interpreted to, supersede a defendant's federal constitutional rights, nor to afford a victim an independent right to be heard during trial. (F) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a court to dismiss a case, to set aside or void a finding of guilt or an acceptance of a plea of guilty, or to |
Background[edit]
Marsy's Law[edit]
- 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[edit]
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, SEIU California State Council, California Democratic Party, and 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[edit]
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[edit]
- See also: Amending the Oklahoma Constitution
In Idaho, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote in each house of the state legislature during one legislative session. The amendment was introduced on March 6, 2017, as Senate Joint Resolution 103. On March 15, 2017, the Idaho Senate approve the amendment, with 34 senators in favor and one absent.[11] On March 21, 2017, the House State Affairs Committee voted 10-5 against the measure, which stopped the amendment from receiving a floor vote in the House.[12]
House vote[edit]
March 15, 2017[11]
| Idaho SJR 103 Senate Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 34 | 100.00% | ||
| No | 0 | 0.00% | ||
| Partisan breakdown of Senate votes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Party Affiliation | Yes | No | Absent | Total |
| Democrat | 5 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| Republican | 29 | 0 | 0 | 29 |
| Total | 34 | 0 | 1 | 35 |
See also[edit]
External links[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Idaho Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution 103," accessed March 16, 2017
- ↑ Marsy's Law, "Idaho," accessed March 16, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 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 - ↑ 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 Idaho Legislature, "SJR 103 Overview," accessed March 16, 2017
- ↑ The Spokesman-Review, "House panel kills crime victim rights amendment after 3 days of stormy hearings," March 21, 2017
 |
State of Idaho Boise (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | 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 |
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF