After a lengthy and emotional hearing, the House State Affairs Committee has narrowly approved “Marsy’s Law for Idaho,” a proposed constitutional amendment on victims’ rights, on a 9-6 vote.

Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, said, she had concerns over “heavy-handed tactics used” to push the legislation. “I believe there’s more going on here,” she said.

Rep. Jason Monks, R-Nampa, said, “Heavy-handed tactics … I wish we could say that about every issue that comes before us. ... We’ve had a lot of ‘em this year.” Monks said, “To me, hearing from the people is not a heavy- handed tactic. … That’s my job, is to listen to that. … This is something that I think our people want, and we don’t ultimately get to decide. … The people get to decide.”

In order to amend the state Constitution, the measure would need to win two-thirds support in both the House and Senate and then majority support from the people at the next general election.

“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.

Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, said, “I think we all support victims and victims’ rights, and we have a robust process now that is in our Constitution from 1994, and we really haven’t heard a lot about failings. ... Frankly, most of the complaints were with the prosecutors not doing what they needed to do.”

Luker said he has many concerns about the bill, HJR 8, including a sweeping definition of “crime victim” that would be written into the Idaho Constitution. “It includes misdemeanors, minor crimes, minor property damage,” he said.

“I am very concerned about the money that’s been involved in this,” Luker said. “This is a large amount of money that is driving this, and it really has not taken into account the needs in Idaho.” He noted that an extensive study by Boise State University of ways that Idaho could do more for crime victims pointed to an array of other steps – not this constitutional amendment.

“All of this can be done by statute, in fact we have a very extensive statutory system as has been discussed, and for the most part it’s working very well,” Luker said. “This is a big risk for a monument to somebody who has a sincere motivation, but this is not what Idaho should be doing. We should not be running our system based on big money, and especially in the Constitution.”

Idaho’s constitutional provision providing for crime victims’ rights was approved by voters 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. 

---

---