Challenge to victims’ rights amendment heads to Commonwealth Court |

Challenge to victims’ rights amendment heads to Commonwealth Court

Deb Erdley

A state appellate court will hear arguments Wednesday in Harrisburg in a suit seeking to bar Pennsylvania from counting votes in the Nov. 5 referendum on a crime victims’ rights amendment.

Civil liberties advocates say Marsy’s Law, the proposed amendment that has attracted widespread support from victims’ rights groups and law enforcement, fails to meet a provision of the state constitution that requires each change to be considered separately.

The proposed amendment would affect, among other things: the availability of bail, who can be called as witnesses, the pardons process and the right to be free from double jeopardy. It also would reinforce various laws adopted over the last two decades giving crime victims the right to be notified of and present for court proceedings, seek restitution, offer victim impact statements in court and be notified of parole proceedings and inmate release dates.

The suit filed this month follows votes approving the measure in the last two legislative sessions. That standard must be met before a proposed amendment can be put on the ballot. If approved, such measures are typically added to the constitution.

Ballots for the general election were already finalized when lawyers for the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw, a Philadelphia woman active in criminal justice reform efforts, filed suit. They are seeking an injunction to bar a vote count.

The court battle commenced as supporters of the amendment launched an emotionally-charged statewide advertising campaign calling for victims’ rights to be enshrined in the state constitution.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.