‘Marsy’s Law’ introduced on divided vote, after extensive debate
After much debate, a divided House State Affairs Committee has voted to introduce “Marsy’s Law for Idaho,” the latest version of a measure calling to amend the Idaho Constitution to add additional rights for crime victims, while making a change in the measure proposed by Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard. That would change the initial thrust of the bill from “rights of crime victims” to “the responsibility of government to protect the rights of crime victims.”
“I think it’s critical that we address the issue, are these rights inherent rights that we have as citizens, or are we willing to turn this over to government to define what our rights are and what our rights are not? That’s where I’m coming from.” She told the committee, “Government does not give us our right, God gives us our rights. ... If we allow government to define our rights, they will start taking our rights away from us.”
Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, objected to Scott’s change, saying it would then conflict with other wording that followed in the bill. But then Barbieri said that after speaking with Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, lead sponsor of the bill, he’d been assured that the subsequent wording wouldn’t be affected.
Five committee members voted against Scott’s motion to introduce the bill with the change: Reps. Monks, Palmer, Armstrong, Loertscher and Jordan. Jordan noted that she voted “no” because she planned to support the original motion, to allow a full hearing on the bill, although she has concerns about it. “My biggest concern is that we’re already ignoring a major problem in this state, which is our responsibility to fund public defense, which is a constitutional requirement,” she said. However, she said, “I feel the public deserves the right to have their voices heard, so I will be supporting the motion for a hearing.”
Rep. Priscilla Giddings, R-White Bird, said she understood that the bill’s sponsors have lost their endorsement from the Idaho Sheriffs Association. But lobbyist Jason Kreizenbeck, who presented the bill to the committee, told her, “I got a note from Mike Kane ... (that) said the organization has endorsed and is supporting our proposal still, so the information you had may not have been timely.”
Kane is the lobbyist for the Idaho Sheriff’s Association, along with other clients. Kreizenbeck, a former chief of staff for Gov. Butch Otter, is a contract lobbyist who represents an array of clients.
“Marsy’s Law for Idaho” passed the Idaho Senate unanimously last year, but died in the House committee with bipartisan opposition after three days of hearings.
Marsy’s Law is the name for a California constitutional amendment enacted in 2008, named for a woman who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. A week later, the victim’s brother and mother, after visiting her grave, were confronted by the accused murderer in a grocery store; they hadn’t been notified that he’d been released on bail. That prompted the brother, Henry Nicholas, to form a foundation for victims rights and push for Marsy’s Law and similar provisions in other states. Illinois, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have since adopted similar amendments.
Idaho already has a constitutional provision providing for crime victims’ rights that was enacted in 1994; this proposal would expand it. The current provision, Article I, Section 22, declares that victims of crime in Idaho have a series of rights, from the right “to be treated with fairness, respect, dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process” to rights to prior notification of criminal proceedings, to be present at and heard upon request at sentencing or release hearings, to refuse contact with the defendant or the defendant’s agent unless authorized by law, and to read pre-sentence reports.
The proposed amendment would expand that to require “reasonable and timely” notification to victims of all proceedings and of news that the offender has escaped or absconded; an opportunity both to be present and to be heard upon request at all proceedings; expanded restitution guarantees; expanded protection from contact with victims or their agents, even when otherwise legally required; and a guarantee of “reasonable and timely” access to pre-sentence reports. It also allows victims to assert their rights in court, and requires courts to respond “promptly.”
A study commissioned by backers of the bill estimated that implementing the change would cost the state of Idaho $553,000 a year. To amend the Idaho Constitution, the measure would need two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate, plus majority support from voters at the next general election.
