HARRISBURG – According to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a proposed victims’ rights amendment known as “Marsy’s Law” that appeared as a question on election ballots in November 2019 was unconstitutional due to the format in which it was presented, and thus citizens’ votes in favor of the measure are invalid.
In a 6-1 majority ruling reached on Dec. 21, the state’s high court upheld a ruling from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the matter, which found the ballot question to be unconstitutional since it was not posed as a single subject, but rather, in multiple and unrelated parts.
“Marsy’s Law” proposed that the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to provide additional rights for crime victims and appeared on an election ballot on Nov. 5, 2019.
Specifically, the measure called for victims and those impacted by crimes “to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity; considering their safety in bail proceedings; timely notice and opportunity to take part in public proceedings; reasonable protection from the accused; right to refuse discovery requests made by the accused; restitution and return of property; proceedings free from delay; and to be informed of these rights.”
The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and citizen Lorraine Haw brought a constitutional challenge to the measure, claiming it was to protect the rights of voters and to see proposed changes to the state constitution presented properly under the law.
One year ago, the Commonwealth Court sided with the challengers to “Marsy’s Law” in a 3-2 decision.
Though an unofficial count from then-Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar showed that about 74 percent of voters were in favor of “Marsy’s Law”, the state Supreme Court’s recent ruling means that those votes will now officially remain uncounted and uncertified.
State Supreme Court Justice Debra Todd wrote for the Court in the majority ruling.
“The Victim’s Rights Amendment [Marsy’s Law] was, in actuality, a collection of amendments which added a multiplicity of new rights to our [Pennsylvania] Constitution, and, because those new rights were not interrelated in purpose and function, the manner in which it was presented to the voters denied them their right to consider and vote on each change separately, as Article XI, Section 1 mandates. We, therefore, affirm the decision of the Commonwealth Court,” Todd said.
According to the majority ruling, the job of the state Supreme Court here was to examine whether the changes the measure would institute were “functionally interrelated”, but most the of the Court found that the measures did not depend on each other to function, and therefore, had no such interrelation.
The Court’s lone dissenter in the matter was Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, who argued that functional interrelation shouldn’t be the measuring stick for consideration of the changes called for in “Marsy’s Law”, but rather, whether those changes work hand-in-hand to achieve a common goal.
“The changes in the proposed amendment are specifically and narrowly tailored to fulfill the singular common objective of establishing for victims of crime justice and due process in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and do not substantively change any other existing provisions of the [Pennsylvania] Constitution,” Mundy said.
“As such, I would hold the submission of the proposed amendment to the electorate as a single ballot question was not violative of the separate vote requirement of Article XI, Section 1. Thus, I would reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court.”
The organization behind “Marsy’s Law” communicated a “deep disappointment” with the ruling.
“This is yet another example of how the Commonwealth does not support victims of crime. The decision will ultimately disenfranchise the over 1.7 million Pennsylvania voters who expressed their support of Marsy’s Law. We are still reviewing the opinion, however, are deeply disappointed in the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,” Jennifer Riley, State Director of Marsy’s Law for Pennsylvania, said in a statement.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania expressed satisfaction with the state Supreme Court’s conclusion.
“In this year of seemingly unending attacks on our democracy, we applaud the state Supreme Court for shutting down this clear attempt by the [Pennsylvania] Legislature to mislead voters. This lawsuit has always been about voting rights and how the state constitution is amended. The legislature attempted to do too much at once, which is prohibited to keep voters from being overwhelmed or misled. We are grateful that the court ruled the right way on this important principle,” ACLU of Pennsylvania Executive Director Reggie Shuford said.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case 4 MAP 2021
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com