Legal action reveals flaws of Marsy’s Law
The Issue:
A court ruling puts proposed victims’ rights measure in jeopardy.
Our Opinion:
Adding victims’ rights to the state Constitution is a good cause, but a better approach is needed.
Given the legal gyrations Marsy’s Law has been through over the past couple of weeks, the amendment seems in need of a rewrite – if only to save our legal system a lot of needless legal haggling over procedures the proposed constitutional amendment leaves largely undefined.
Supporters say adding crime victims’ rights to the Pennsylvania Constitution would deliver a needed remedy by putting their rights on par with those of criminal defendants. They persuaded legislators to support the amendment and put it on Tuesday’s ballot for voters’ consideration
But a legal challenge filed Oct. 10 by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters said the ballot question itself is illegal because it calls for many changes to the state constitution that should be put before voters in more than one question. The league’s lawsuit also argued that the 75 words on the ballot do not frame the question well enough for voters to make an informed decision on the 500-word amendment.
Supporters disputed that argument, insisting that adding victims’ rights to the state constitution is a clear enough question and that victims’ rights is a single subject that can be settled by voters in a single question.
Lawyers for Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, the defendant in the lawsuit, put forth a list of harms to the voters and taxpayers of Pennsylvania that she said would result from striking it from the ballot: the state has spent $2 million advertising and preparing the question; thousands of absentee and military ballots with the question had already been received; and voters would be confused and the result could be skewed by a temporary injunction.
It’s in voters’ power to prevent that last problem. They should make a decision on Marsy’s Law and communicate it on their ballots.
Of the many concerns raised against the amendment – named for Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, a college student who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983 – the most important came from a defense attorney who testified during a hearing on the lawsuit before Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler.
Ceisler framed the issue very well in her ruling: “If approved by a majority of the electorate,” she wrote, “every stage of the criminal proceedings, including bail hearings, pretrial proceedings, trials, guilty pleas, sentencing proceedings, and parole and pardon reviews, will be put into doubt.”
Ceisler’s ruling Wednesday for a temporary injunction means that, while the amendment is likely to appear on ballots statewide Tuesday, the votes on it likely will not be immediately counted or certified.
State Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a booster of the bill, vowed an immediate appeal.
Supporters of the amendment are no doubt sincere when they say the amendment would do no more than give victims the rights they deserve in the criminal justice system. But the simplicity of their stand does not erase the complexity of the task.
The concerns Ceisler listed will have to be addressed – perhaps by judges or maybe by the General Assembly. The amendment itself includes a phrase that simultaneously
But a legal challenge filed Oct. 10 by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters said the ballot question itself is illegal because it calls for many changes to the state constitution that should be put before voters in more than one question. The league’s lawsuit also argued that the 75 words on the ballot do not frame the question well enough for voters to make an informed decision on the 500-word amendment.
hints at lawmakers filling in the blanks and the complexity of the task.
Before laying out some of the rights it intends to secure for victims of crime in Pennsylvania, the amendment leaves the following rather expansive wiggle room, “as further provided and as defined by the General Assembly.”
Beyond the issues raised by Ceisler, this phrase seems to open the door to litigating the content of Marsy’s Law into the next decade or more.
Given the legal action it already has produced, perhaps those who want victims’ rights added to the
Pennsylvania Constitution should go back to the drawing board.
Rather than continue litigating to ensure the votes for it are counted, supporters of Marsy’s Law should break it into separate questions and let Pennsylvania voters decide each on its merits. That would rid their effort of its one seemingly disinterested opponent – the League of Women Voters – and thereby increase the legitimacy of their cause.