Most Recent News
Phoenix School of Law's Phoenix Law Review's April 9, 2012 "Special Edition: A Proposed Crime Victims' Amendment to the Constitution" will feature a series of articles examining the proposed Victims' Rights Amendment. View the articles here.
Read Gordon and Elaine Rondeau's article in support for a federal Vicitms' Rights Amendment.
Pennsylvania's Supreme Court invalidates Marsy's Law
On January 7, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, prevented the ratification election results from being counted pending further legal proceedings. On December 21, 2021, the court ruled 6-1 that the amendment violated Pennsylvania's Constitution's requirement that amendments address a single topic. Marsy's Law had received 74 percent of the vote in favor of ratification in 2019..Challenge to Kentucky's Marsy's Law Dismissed.
On April 14, 2020, the Kentucky Legislature, for the second time, passed Marsy's Law which will go on the ballot for a statewide ratification vote. Although a previous version of the bill was enacted and ratified by 63 percent of the voters in 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated the measure based on a procedural issue because the entire text was not on the ballot. Marsy's Law was re-introduced in January 2020 and received final Legislative approval for submission to voters in the November election. The amendment was ratified a second time on Nov. 3, 2020 with a 63.3% favorable vote. On March 17, 2022 the Kentucky Supreme Court heard oral arguments whether proper procedure was followed but on April 28, 2022, the Court dismissed the challenge on grounds plaintiffs lacked constitutional standing.November 2018: Voters in six states ratify Marsy's Law.
Marsys's Law crime victims' rights amendments to state constitutions were supported by large margins in all six states in which the issue was on the November 2018 ballot:
- Florida (61.3%)
- Georgia (80.7%)
- Nevada (61.3%)
- North Carolina (61.2%)
- Oklahoma (78%)
- Although 62.8% of Kentucky voters ratified Marsy's Law in November 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court on June 13, 2019 unanimously invalidated the amendment saying it was improper to place a one-sentence summary of the law on the ballot.
In June 2018, voters in South Dakota approved changes to its version of Marsy's Law originally adopted in 2016.
November 2017:Strengthening Ohio's Victims' Rights Amendment.
Advocates in Ohio successfully broadened and strengthened its rights for crime victims by providing for enforcement of those rights. Marsy's Law for Ohio was put on the November 2017 ballot through an initiated constitutional amendment that was approved by 82.59% of the voters.November 2016: Victims' Rights Amendments adopted in more three states
On November 8, 2016, three states adopted state constitutional amendments recognizing crime victims' rights. Voters in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota approved the adoption of vicitms' rights amendments by margins of more than 60 percent. This brings to 36 the number of states with constitutional rights for crime victims.
Although Montana's amendment was ratified by the state's voters, the state Supreme Court invalidated the measure on procedural grounds. South Dakota's amendment, originally adopted in 2016 was revised in June 2018.
Hawaii action on VRA
Crime victims in Hawaii are again fighting for their rights to be recognized in their state's constitution. The Hawaii House Judiciary committee unanimously signed off on the proposal for a State victims' rights constitutional amendment:
- "'Marsy's Law' clears major hurdle at state Capitol," Hawaii New Now, Feb. 11, 2016
- Hawaii lawmakers consider 'Marsy's Law," Associated Press, Feb. 9, 2016
- Victims of crime want rights spelled out in Hawaii constitution, Daily Journal, Mar. 3, 2015
- Victims of crime want rights stated in Hawaii constitution, Hawaii News Now, Marc. 3, 2015
- Crime victims’ right-to-know bill under consideration by Hawaii lawmakers, KHON2, Mar. 3, 2015
- Hawaii Crime Victims' Bill of Rights Deferred Another Year,Honolulu Civil Beat, Mar. 4, 2015
Federal Victims' Rights Amendment Introduced
House Joint Resolution 45, proposing a Victims' Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been introduced by Congressman Trent Franks, chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives. The Subcommittee held a hearing on Friday, May 1, 2015 on the proposed constitutional amendment.
Witnesses included were:
- Professor Paul Cassell, one of America’s leading scholars on the rights of crime victims.
- Collene Campbell, former Mayor of San Juan Capistrano, whose son Scott was brutally murdered, and then in an unrelated crime, whose brother and sister in law, racing legend Mickey Thompson and his wife Trudy, were murdered by hitmen hired by a former business partner of Mickey’s.
- Steve Kelly, Maryland lawyer and crime victim advocate, whose sister was kidnapped, raped, and murdered, and who has devoted his life and legal career to be a strong voice for the rights of crime victims.
- Letters of Support
Detailed information on the hearing (including a link to view a video of the hearing), letters of support and further developments is available on the Legislative Info page.
November 2014: Illinois strengths its Victims' Rights Amendment
The Illinois Crime Victims' Bill of Rights Amendment was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Illinois as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was overwhelmingly approved. The measure was designed to strengthen the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, which was originally adopted in November , 1992.. Specifically, the amendment was meant to guarantee the following:
-
- A victim’s right to be free from harassment, intimidation and abuse throughout the criminal trial process.
- A victim’s right to notice and to a hearing before a court ruling on access to any of the victim’s records, information or communications.
- A victim’s right to be heard at any post-arraignment court proceeding in which a victim’s right is at issue and at any court proceeding involving a post-arraignment release decision, plea or sentencing.
- A consideration of the safety of the victim and their family in determining bail and conditions of release after arrest and conviction of the defendant.
- That the accused does not have standing to assert the rights of a victim.
In order to be ratified, this measure had to be approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or by a majority of people voting in the election, whichever is less.
Public Hearing Held
On April 23, 2013, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Royce (R-CA) introduced the bi-partisan Victims Rights Amendment. A press conference annoucing the introduction was held on April 25 followed by a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, chaired by Rep. Franks.
Advocates and supporters of federal victims' constitutional rights are urged to continue contacting their Members of Congress and ask them to sign on as co-sponsors. See the "Dear Colleague" letter asking other Representatives to sign on to the measure for additional information.
House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Federal Victims' Rights Amendment
The House Judiciary Committtee's Subcommittee on the Constituion held a public hearing on House Joint Resolution 106, a federal Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment introduced by Rep. Trent Franks and Jim Costa. The hearing was conducted on April 26, 2012. Testifying in support of the amendment was Prof. Paul Cassell and Brooks Douglass.
Federal Victims' Rights Amendment Introduced
On March 26, 2012, thirty years after the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime first proposed a federal constitutional victims' rights amendment, Reps. Trent Franks [R-AZ02] and Jim Costa [D-CA20] introduced a bi-partisan amendment to the U.S. Constitution to recognize crime victims' rights.- Here is the text of House Joint Resolution 106:
SECTION 1. The rights of crime victims to fairness, respect, and dignity, being capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights of the accused, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State. The crime victim shall, moreover, have the rights to reasonable notice of, and shall not be excluded from, public proceedings relating to the offense, to be heard at any release, plea, sentencing, or other such proceeding involving any right established by this article, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, to reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused, to due consideration for the crime victim's safety, and to restitution. The crime victim or the crime victim's lawful representative has standing to fully assert and enforce these rights in any court. Nothing in this article provides grounds for a new trial or any claim for damages and no person accused of the conduct described in section 2 of this article may obtain any form of relief.
SECTION 2. For purposes of this article, a crime victim includes any person against whom the criminal office is committed or who is directly harmed by the commission of an act, which, if committed by a competent adult, would constitute a crime.
SECTION 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 14 years after the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. This article shall take effect on the 180th day after the date of its ratification.
View or download a copy of the resolution here as introduced.
An analysis with references, resources and authority for the draft language can be viewed here [PDF].
According to the sponsors, after conducting hearings in ten cities and receiving testimony from hundreds of citizens and public officials, the President's Task Force found that the criminal justice system has "lost an essential balance....The victims of crime have been transformed into a group oppressively burdened by a system designed to protect them. This oppression must be redressed."
Since the Task Force's recommendations, the Federal and state governments have enacted tens of thousands of statutes seeking to recognize and implement reasonable rights for crime victims. This experience has demonstrated that crime victims' rights can be secured without infringing whatsoever on the constitutional rights of those accused of crime or impeding the functioning of the criminal justice system. Despite those well-intentioned efforts, however, statutes are insufficient for the same profound reason cited by the Task Force in 1982: they are not part of the fundamental law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Only inclusion in the U.S. Constitution can ensure full, meaningful and consistent rights for all citizens throughout our nation. Only a constitutional amendment will begin to change the culture that treats crime victims with less than the fairness, dignity and respect to which they are entitled.
Victims' advocates have worked hard since the passage in 2004 of the Crime Victims' Rights Act to give the statute meaning and power to change the culture of the American justice system. The experience is clearly mixed. There are cases in which the rights have been denied or ignored. There are cases in which the rights were initially denied and then recognized only after extensive litigation. And there are cases in which the rights have been respected. Several conclusions are now clear:
- Only a federal constitutional amendment can establish meaningful and enforceable rights for every crime victim in the country.
- Statutes do not have the same power to change the culture that the U.S. Constitution will have.
- When the rights are enforced the system does not break down; indeed it becomes more just.
NVCAP invites its partners from our earlier campaigns, the large community of victims' advocates, and every citizen to join us once again as we move forward together in the cause of victim justice. How fitting it would be, during this 30th anniversary of the President's Task Force, to finally heed its call for justice.
