There is only one referendum on the ballot for Pennsylvania voters during Tuesday’s election. The Marsy’s Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment would change the state constitution to specifically include rights for crime victims.

However, the results of that ballot referendum won’t become official until judges decide on a lawsuit challenging it. The suit, filed by the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters and a criminal justice advocate, claims that the Marsy’s Law amendment actually contains multiple constitutional amendments, which should be considered separately.

Supporters of Marsy’s Law say they expected legal challenges along the way, but they are undaunted in their quest to make victims’ rights a part of the state constitution.

“Protecting victims’ rights has never been more important than in this moment — and the ability to act has never been in the hands of citizens like it is right now,” said Jennifer Storm, the state’s Victim Advocate.

Currently, the state has a victims’ rights law, but Marsy’s Law supporters say that the current system provides more protection for people who are accused of crimes than it does for their alleged victims.

The bill is named for Marsy Nicholas, a California woman who was killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. While awaiting trial, her killer was released on jail. Family members were not notified and ran into him in the store. Her brother, a tech billionaire, was inspired by the family’s ordeal to make a push for similar victims’ rights laws across the country.

Marsy’s Law has been approved as a ballot issue in 12 different states, and has wide support across Pennsylvania. Before a constitutional amendment can even go to a referendum the state legislature must approve it twice. When state legislators cast their second vote on the law this spring, state senators voted unanimously, and 190 of the 202 members of the state house voted in favor.

Legislative support

The bill has support from all the legislators in the Times News area.

Sen. David Argall (R-Schuylkill/Berks) has said that the amendment is vital to ensure that victims receive the rights they deserve. Sen. John Yudichak (D-Luzerne/Carbon) said that victims of crime deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and that they deserve to have equal rights in Pennsylvania.

Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-Northampton) spoke in support of the bill before the state legislature in June. She has said the goal of the bill is to empower victims of crimes and their families at times when they feel powerless.

“We can all agree that no rapist should have more rights than the victim. No murderer should be afforded more rights than the victim’s family. Marsy’s Law would ensure that victims have the same coequal rights as the accused and convicted — nothing more, nothing less,” Boscola said.

What it changes

The law would change several sections of the state constitution to reflect the rights of crime victims. Victims would have the right to speak at sentencing and parole hearings, a right to be notified of a plea bargain, a right to be notified when they are released, a right to refuse interviews or discovery requests made by the accused, and a right to restitution.

On Wednesday, a state appeals court approved a request for an injunction, which blocks the state from tallying the results of the ballot referendum while their challenge is heard in court.

The Pa. Attorney General’s office says they plan to appeal the decision.

The request was filed by lawyers for the League of Women Voters and Lorraine Haw, a member of Coalition to Abolish Death by Incarceration, who claim that the ballot question contains what amounts to multiple constitutional amendments. Haw has said that she joined the suit as a plaintiff because she agrees with some parts of Marsy’s Law, but disagrees with others.

Attorney Stephen Bizar of Dechert LLP, a co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said they are pleased and ready to move ahead to ensure the requirements for amending the constitution are met.

“From the start, this case has not been about victims’ rights, but about protecting the rights of Pennsylvania voters. That is what our clients are concerned about here. When constitutional requirements are skirted, even for good reasons, every one of us suffers,” he said.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is supporting the plaintiffs in the case. It opposes approval of Marsy’s Law because of fears that it would turn “innocent until proven guilty” into “guilty until proven innocent.

“If someone is presumed to be the victim of a crime before a jury returns a verdict, then the accused is presumed guilty, not innocent. And by granting victims new rights, such as the right to a speedy trial and right to refuse discovery requests, Marsy’s Law also undermines due process protections necessary to defend oneself,” Elizabeth Radol, legislative director of ACLU of Pennsylvania, wrote in an op-ed last month.