Marsy’s Law votes won’t be counted, Pa. Supreme Court rules in split opinion | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Marsy’s Law votes won’t be counted, Pa. Supreme Court rules in split opinion

Natasha Lindstrom
1900229_web1_ptr-supremecourt2
Sean Stipp | Tribune-Review
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s chambers in the Pennsylvania State Capitol.

Pennsylvanians still have the right to cast a vote Tuesday on the proposed Marsy’s Law related to victim rights — but officials won’t be counting and sharing the results of votes on that particular measure, the state’s highest court affirmed in a split ruling Monday.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on a 4-3 split, denied an emergency petition seeking to overturn last week’s decision by a Commonwealth Court judge to bar officials from certifying votes on the controversial, multimillion-dollar backed referendum.

Among other things, Marsy’s Law would require that crime victims be notified of an offender’s release and given standing in court for proceedings including bail hearings, parole and trials. While many of those issues are part of the Pennsylvania Crime Victim’s Act of 1998, advocates said the proposed amendment would give victims standing to demand that those rights are upheld.

Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania argued that the proposed measure — which enumerates a variety of rights — failed to meet the state constitutional requirement that limits amendments to a single issue.

The case advanced to the Supreme Court after Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro appealed Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler’s injunction. Shapiro contended that the referendum met constitutional muster and argued that barring a vote count could suppress balloting on the referendum and hurt voter turnout.

“Neither this order, nor the order of the Commonwealth Court, deprives any voter of the right to cast a ballot on the proposed ‘Victim’s Rights’ amendment at issue in this litigation at the upcoming Nov. 5, 2019 General Election,” Monday’s Supreme Court order said.

Chief Justice Saylor filed a dissenting statement signed by Justices Kevin Dougherty and Sallie Updyke Mundy.

Saylor wrote that he had “difficulty comprehending why the Commonwealth Court would bar a mere tabulation of duly-cast votes of the electorate.” He suggested that votes at least be tabulated even if not directly linked to the passage of the law.

Shapiro slammed the decision, which he said does a disservice to the electorate as well as victims of crime.

“I respectfully disagree with the court’s majority ruling,” Shapiro said Monday night in a statement. “The courts in this matter had a very clear opportunity — let the votes be counted; let the voters’ voices be heard. I can’t help but feel the courts have quieted the voices of the people of this Commonwealth and failed crime victims.”

Marsy’s Law has percolated through the General Assembly for two years. It passed the Legislature by large margins in two consecutive sessions and was on track to become law with voter approval.

Pennsylvania State Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm said the amendment would give victims standing in court to assert their right to be heard and notified of proceedings. She equated it to balancing the scales for victims.

Civil rights advocates, however, said they feared the proposed changes could trample on the rights of those accused of crimes prior to any conviction.

The measure is part of a national campaign that California tech billionaire Henry J. Nicholas III is underwriting to codify victims’ rights in every state constitution, with the goal of eventually amending the U.S. Constitution.

Nicholas established the Marsy’s Law for All Foundation in memory of his sister, Marsalee Nicholas. As a California college student, she was murdered in 1983 by a former boyfriend. Nicholas began his push for victims’ rights after his mother encountered Marsalee’s murderer in a grocery store a week after her daughter was killed. She did not know he had been released on bond.

In what one expert in state constitutional law called an unprecedented campaign for an amendment, Marsy’s Law for Pennsylvania has blanketed airwaves across the state with a 30-second ad featuring Emmy Award-winning actor Kelsey Grammer.

According to campaign finance reports, the Marsy’s Law Foundation spent more than $100 million in 12 states over the past 11 years since passing the first crime victims’ rights amendment in California in 2008.

Voters in 11 states have passed similar amendments. Courts in Montana and Kentucky later overturned the measure in those states.

Campaign finance records in Pennsylvania show the Marsy’s Law Foundation committed $6.4 million — both in cash and through in-kind contributions — to the campaign here as of Oct. 23.

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Natasha at 412-380-8514, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.