Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Victim rights amendment narrowly fails in Idaho House

BOISE - “Marsy’s Law for Idaho,” a proposed constitutional amendment on victim’s rights, failed in the Idaho House on Monday by falling five votes short of the required two-thirds support.

Backers of the measure vowed to return for a third year, after failing two years in a row to win Idaho lawmakers’ support. “Some people just don’t care about equal rights for crime victims, and that’s unfortunate,” said Jason Arrington, state director of Marsy’s Law for Idaho.

The House voted 42-28 in favor of the measure after more than an hour and a half of heartfelt debate, in which North Idaho lawmakers split.

Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, told the House, “Marsy’s Law is not an Idaho solution. It’s a billionaire from California’s solution to put new constitutional language into our Idaho Constitution. And as we know, this is a national campaign. The money that’s being pumped into these states is astronomical.”

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 are among states that have since adopted similar amendments.

Idaho voters enacted their own crime victims’ rights amendment to the state Constitution in 1994. That provision 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 needed two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate, plus majority support from voters at the next general election. An earlier version of it passed the Senate unanimously last year, but died in a House committee.

Rep. Luke Malek, R-Coeur d’Alene, was among those speaking out in favor of the proposal. Malek said when he was a prosecutor, “We walked on eggshells around the 6th Amendment rights of those who are accused of crimes.” And yet, he said, “We are not doing everything for victims that we could be doing.”

Rep. Fred Wood, R-Burley, said, “There is no court in the state of Idaho, there is no federal court, that has ever found that Idaho’s Constitution is insufficient or deficient with respect to crime victims’ rights. … We don’t need someone from California to tell us that we have a deficiency.”