Ohio Issue 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Initiative (2017)

Ohio Issue 1
Election date November 7, 2017
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

2017 measures
November 7, 2017
Ohio Issue 2
Ohio Issue 1

Ohio Issue 1, the Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Initiative, was on the ballot in Ohio as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 7, 2017. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to repeal Section 10a of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, a section addressing the rights of crime victims, and replace the section with a Marsy's Law.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to repeal Section 10a of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, a section addressing the rights of crime victims, and replace the section with a Marsy's Law.

This amendment became effective on February 5, 2018.

Election results

Issue 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,921,172	82.59%
No		404,957	17.41%

Election results from Ohio Secretary of State

Overview

Initiative design

The measure was a type of Marsy's Law. Issue 1 provided crime victims with specific constitutional rights, including the right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s safety, dignity, and privacy; to be notified about and present at proceedings; to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole of the accused; to a prompt conclusion of the case; to reasonable protection from the accused; to be notified about release or escape of the accused; to refuse an interview or disposition at the request of the accused; and to receive restitution from the individual who committed the criminal offense.

Rights of crime victims in Ohio

Issue 1 repealed and replaced Ohio’s Amendment 2, which voters passed in 1994. Like Amendment 2, Marsy’s Law was designed to provide crime victims with constitutional rights. Unlike Amendment 2, Marsy’s Law provided some new rights and a more specific list of rights, including a right to a prompt conclusion of a case, a right to refuse interview at request of the accused, and a right to restitution.

Status of Marsy's Law

Going into the election, five other states had ratified constitutional amendments known as Marsy's Law. The first of these states was California in 2008, where voters approved the citizen-initiated Proposition 9. In 2014, the Illinois State Legislature became the first legislature to refer a Marsy's Law, which voters approved. Marsy's Law for All sponsored initiative campaigns in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota in 2016. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., provided financial backing for the initiatives. Voters approved the three measures. As of 2017, a Marsy's Law measure had never been defeated at the ballot box. As of January 2018, Marsy's Laws were certified to go before voters in Nevada, Oklahoma, and Kentucky so far. Marsy's Laws were proposed in other states as well. Click here to see an up-to-date list of law enforcement measures, including Marsy's Laws. considered Marsy's Law amendments. The amendment is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

Issue 1 Proposed Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Initiative Petition To repeal and replace the existing language in Section 10a of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would expand the rights of victims under the current Section 10a and require that the rights of victims be protected as vigorously as the rights of the accused. More specifically, for the purpose of ensuring due process, respect, fairness, and justice for crime victims and their families in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, the amendment would provide victims with: the right to privacy and to be treated with respect, fairness, and dignity; the right to information about the rights and services available to crime victims; the right to notification in a timely manner of all proceedings in the case; the right to be present and heard at all court proceedings, including the right to petition the court to protect the victim’s rights; the right to a prompt conclusion of the case; to refuse discovery requests made by the accused, except as authorized by Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio constitution; the right to reasonable protection from the accused; the right to notice of the release or escape of the accused; and the right to restitution. The proposed amendment would not establish a cause of action for damages or compensation against the state or any political subdivision. If approved, the amendment will be effective 90 days after the election.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Ohio Constitution

Issue 1 amended Section 10a of Article I of the Ohio Constitution. The following underlined text was added, and struck-through text was deleted:

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

Section 10a. Rights of Crime Victims

Victims of criminal offenses shall be accorded fairness, dignity, and respect in the criminal justice process, and, as the General Assembly shall define and provide by law, shall be accorded rights to reasonable and appropriate notice, information, access, and protection and to a meaningful role in the criminal justice process. This section does not confer upon any person a right to appeal or modify any decision in a criminal proceeding, does not abridge any other right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or this constitution, and does not create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the state, any officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any political subdivision, or any officer of the court.

(A) To secure for victims justice and due process throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim shall have the following rights, which shall be protected in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused:

(1) to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s safety, dignity and privacy;

(2) upon request, to reasonable and timely notice of all public proceedings involving the criminal offense or delinquent act against the victim, and to be present at all such proceedings;

(3) to be heard in any public proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole, or in any public proceeding in which a right of the victim is implicated;

(4) to reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused;

(5) upon request, to reasonable notice of any release or escape of the accused;

(6) except as authorized by section 10 of Article I of this constitution, to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused;

(7) to full and timely restitution from the person who committed the criminal offense or delinquent act against the victim;

(8) to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case;

(9) upon request, to confer with the attorney for the government; and

(10) to be informed, in writing, of all rights enumerated in this section.

(B) The victim, the attorney for the government upon request of the victim, or the victim's other lawful representative, in any proceeding involving the criminal offense or delinquent act against the victim or in which the victim's rights are implicated, may assert the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law. If the relief sought is denied, the victim or the victim's lawful representative may petition the court of appeals for the applicable district, which shall promptly consider and decide the petition.

(C) This section does not create any cause of action for damages or compensation against the state, any political subdivision of the state, any officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any political subdivision, or any officer of the court.

(D) As used in this section, "victim" means a person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act. The term "victim" does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor, or incapacitated victim.

(E) All provisions of this section shall be self-executing and severable, and shall supersede all conflicting state laws.

(F) This section shall take effect ninety days after the election at which it was approved.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2017

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Ohio Ballot Board wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 10, and the FRE is 52. The word count for the ballot title is 211, and the estimated reading time is 56 seconds.

Support

Marsy's Law for Ohio led the campaign in support of the initiative. Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) was co-chair of the campaign.

Supporters

Officials

• Attorney General Mike DeWine (R)
• Rep. Larry Householder (R-72)
• Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson of Toledo

Organizations

• Parents Of Murdered Children, Inc.
• Buckeye State Sheriff’s Association

Arguments

The official argument in support of Issue 1, which was unsigned, was filed with the Ohio Ballot Board. The argument stated:

“

A YES vote on Issue 1, the Equal Rights for Crime Victims amendment, commonly known as Marsy’s Law, will ensure that the rights of crime victims are protected in Ohio’s Constitution. YES ON ISSUE ONE MEANS CRIME VICTIMS WILL FINALLY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS: Issue One places in the state constitution much-needed protections for crime victims and their families. Issue One benefits all Ohioans by guaranteeing that crime victims will have notification during each step in the legal process. Issue One protects all Ohioans by guaranteeing that crime victims and their family members have the right to be present in the courtroom and a voice in the judicial process. Issue One empowers all Ohioans by guaranteeing that crime victims and their family members have input into plea bargains as well as financial restitution from the offender, if appropriate. YES on Issue 1 strengthens Ohio’s existing laws that have failed to fully protect the rights of crime victims. A YES vote guarantees that victims can appear before the court for enforcement of their rights if they are being violated. Issue One is supported by both Democrats and Republicans including more than 275 lawmakers, local elected officials, prosecutors, law-enforcement officers and crime victim advocates in Ohio. A YES vote for Issue One brings dignity, respect and justice for crime victims to Ohio’s criminal justice system. A YES vote for Issue One guarantees that crime victims and their families have a voice in Ohio’s criminal justice system. Yes on Issue 1 has NO impact on the rights of defendants. We urge a YES vote on Issue 1

”

Marsy's Law for Ohio: “ One Day”

Other arguments in support of the measure included:

• Catherine Harper Lee, executive director of the Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center, stated, "Marsy’s Law will ensure crime victims receive equal protections and equal access to justice. Far too many crime victims have been denied their most basic rights. Marsy's Law corrects this injustice by informing crime victims of their rights, the status of their cases and (to) receive notice of hearings that can impact their safety.

• Attorney General Mike DeWine (R), co-chair of the support campaign, said, "I think this is the natural next extension of victims’ rights. It seems the right thing to do to engrave it in our constitution. ... Most prosecutors are doing everything that will be required by Marsy’s Law, but it make [sic] these things a matter of right, not discretionary."

Opposition

Opponents

• State Public Defender Tim Young
• ACLU of Ohio
• The Ohio State Bar Association

Arguments

State Public Defender Tim Young wrote the official argument against Issue 1, which was filed with the Ohio Ballot Board. The argument stated:

“

Ohio law affords victims extensive rights. Issue 1, known as Marsy’s Law, originated in California. One week after a young woman was killed, her mother was confronted by the accused murderer in a store. She didn’t know he’d been released on bail. Ohio does not have this problem. Ohio law requires prosecutors to notify victims when a defendant is arrested or eligible for pretrial release. In 1998, Ohio implemented one of the nation's first automated victim notification systems, which offers victims information 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Ohio law requires prosecutors to protect the rights of victims. If a crime victim is not receiving the assistance they are entitled to by law, Ohio should provide additional resources and training toward victim’s services, not amend our state constitution. Issue 1 does not provide additional resources and the government remains immune to liability. When a victim isn’t notified about a court hearing, a plea bargain, or offender’s release - the victim should have recourse against the government – which is not provided under Issue 1. The problem in Ohio is not the absence of victims’ rights, but the lack of a remedy when the government fails to carry out duties owed to victims. Issue 1 amends Ohio’s constitution to give victims the right to refuse to turn over potential evidence and to petition the court of appeals. Issue 1 conflicts with essential guarantees in the Bill of Rights, including double jeopardy, confrontation, and speedy trial – rights fundamental to our Founders. This amendment will result in increased litigation, increased costs to taxpayers, and will delay cases, only hurting victims. This amendment is wrong for Ohio.

”

Other arguments against the measure included:

• John Murphy, Executive Director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, stated, "What we’re concerned about mainly is it creates the ability of the victim to intervene in the criminal justice process at any point along the line if they think they aren’t getting their proper due. It could be a real mess."
• Barry Wilford, Public Policy Director of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the amendment would override state law, eliminating judges' abilities to weigh the rights of victims and defendants. He stated, "This is overkill. It's a good cause, but putting it in the Constitution would be a drastic mistake."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures

One ballot issue committee, Marsy's Law for Ohio, LLC, registered in support of the initiative. The committee raised $10.57 million and spent $10.18 million. Henry Nicholas was the largest contributor to the campaign, donating $10.28 million.

Marsy's Law for Ohio spent $2.3 million to collect signatures to get Issue 1 certified for the ballot. As 306,591 signatures were required, the campaign spent about $7.50 per required signature to get the measure on the ballot.

There were no committees registered to oppose the initiative.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$20,567,900.00	$579,507.24	$21,147,407.24	$19,781,123.38	$20,360,630.62
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$20,567,900.00	$579,507.24	$21,147,407.24	$19,781,123.38	$20,360,630.62

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Issue 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Marcy's Law for Ohio, LLC	$10,283,950.00	$289,753.62	$10,573,703.62	$9,890,561.69	$10,180,315.31
Marsy's Law for Ohio, LLC	$10,283,950.00	$289,753.62	$10,573,703.62	$9,890,561.69	$10,180,315.31
Total	$20,567,900.00	$579,507.24	$21,147,407.24	$19,781,123.38	$20,360,630.62

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Henry Nicholas	$10,283,950.00	$0.00	$10,283,950.00
Marsy's Law for All, LLC	$0.00	$289,753.62	$289,753.62

Reporting dates

Ohio ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2017. The filing dates for reports were as follows:

2017 campaign finance reporting dates
Date	Report	Period
1/31/2017	Annual Report for 2016	1/01/2016 - 12/31/2016
7/31/2017	Report #1	6/03/2017 - 6/30/2017
10/26/2017	Report #2	7/01/2017 - 10/18/2017
12/15/2017	Report #3	10/19/2017 - 12/08/2017
1/31/2018	Annual Report for 2017	1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2017 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Canton Repository said: "This change to Ohio’s Constitution is a good one that protects those among who have been victimized. Say yes to Issue 1 on Nov. 7."
• The Columbus Dispatch said: "Amending the Ohio Constitution is a weighty matter, and The Dispatch generally opposes using voter-approved amendments to accomplish policy goals better addressed by Statehouse lawmakers. Issue 1 overcomes this objection for two reasons: First, the Constitution already has been amended to include language about victims’ rights. Second, a constitution is the place to spell out fundamental rights that protect society and ensure justice."
• The Courier said: "Criminal justice already carries a high price tag, but neither the accused nor victims should ever be shortchanged in the system. It’s time for Ohio to join others in recognizing that victims deserve to have full protections under the law. Vote yes on Issue 1."
• Salem News said: "Doesn’t it seem that victims of crimes nowadays do not get their just due? Is almost as if they are excluded from a legal process. Passage of Issue 1 would help would help immensely. Voices will be heard."

Opposition

• Akron Beacon Journal said: "Which gets to another unsettling aspect, the invitation to see the rights of victims and defendants as equivalent. They are not equal. They have different interests. A defendant faces no less than the loss of liberty. The rights provided serve to protect against the state wrongly convicting a defendant. Victims do not face the prospect of time in prison."
• The Athens News said: "While this well-meaning amendment would grant crime victims more involvement and protections when it comes to prosecuting their alleged offender, it does so at the cost of due process and justice."
• Cleaveland.com said: "True, crime victims' privacy is a genuine issue. But Issue 1's poor wording is a recipe for trouble -- and further litigation."
• The Chronicle-Telegram said: "Issue 1 is full of good intentions, but it's a solution in search of a widespread problem that doesn't exist in Ohio and may indeed create new headaches. If the laws already on the books aren't being followed, the answer isn't more laws - it's to enforce those that do exist. Voters should reject Issue 1."

Background

Voting on Law Enforcement
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

Ohio Amendment 2

See also: Ohio Victims' Rights, Amendment 2 (1994)

In 1994, 77.6 percent of voters approved Amendment 2, which added Section 10a of Article I of the Ohio Constitution. Section 10a was designed to address the rights of crime victims.

Amendment 2 provided crime victims with rights to (1) "fairness, dignity, and respect in the criminal justice process" and (2) "reasonable and appropriate notice, information, access, and protection and to a meaningful role in the criminal justice process." The measure empowered the Ohio State Legislature to define what is reasonable and appropriate notice, information, access, protection, and role for crime victims. Amendment 2 contained language saying that the amendment did not confer persons with a right to appeal decisions in criminal proceedings, abridge other rights found in the Ohio Constitution or U.S. Constitution, or create action for compensation or damages against the state or agents of the state.

The Crime Victim Rights Initiative of 2017 replaced Amendment 2 of 1994. The following table compares the rights of crime victims as outlined in the two amendments:

Issue	Amendment 2 (1994)	Initiative (2017)
Definition of victim	Does not define victim of criminal offense	Defines victim as "person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act;" also defines who cannot be considered a victim
Justice systems affected	Criminal justice process	Criminal justice system and juvenile justice system
General rights	Provides a right to fairness, dignity, and respect throughout the criminal justice process	Provides a right to justice and due process throughout the criminal justice process and to be "treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s safety, dignity and privacy"
Right to know of and be present at proceedings	Provides a right to reasonable and appropriate notice, information, access, and a role in the process, as defined by state Legislature	Provides a right to reasonable and timely notice of public proceedings and to be present at public proceedings
Right to be heard at proceedings	Provides a right to a reasonable and appropriate role in the process, as defined by state Legislature	Provides a right to be heard at public proceedings
Right to prompt conclusion	Not provided	Provides a right to "proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case"
Right to know of release or escape	Provides a right to reasonable and appropriate information in the process, as defined by state Legislature	Provides a right to "reasonable notice of any release or escape of the accused"
Right to refuse interview at request of accused	Not provided	Provides a right to refuse interview at request of accused, except those required under Section 10 of Article 1 of Ohio Constitution
Right to state attorney	Not provided	Provides a right to "confer with the attorney for the government"
Right to restitution	Does not provide for restitution from the person who committed the criminal offense	Provides a right to "full and timely restitution from the person who committed the criminal offense"
Right to protection	Provides a right to reasonable and appropriate protection during the process, as defined by state Legislature	Provides a right to "reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused"
Right to be informed of rights	Provides a right to reasonable and appropriate information during the process, as defined by state Legislature	Provides a right to "be informed, in writing, of all rights enumerated in this section"

Marsy's Law

See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights

Marsy's Law is a type of crime victims' rights legislation. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for Marsy's Law to increase the rights and privileges of victims in state constitutions. Marsy's Law is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Henry Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy's Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008. He formed the national organization, Marsy's Law for All, in 2009.

Ballotpedia identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures. Henry Nicholas and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 91 percent—about 103.2 million—of the total contributions.

The following map shows the status of Marsy's Law ballot measures across the states:

California Proposition 9

Californians voted on Proposition 9 in 2008, which was the first ballot measure known as Marsy's Law. Proposition 9 required that victims and their families be notified during all aspects of the justice process, including bail, sentencing, and parole; and that authorities take a victim's safety into concern when assigning bail or conducting a parole review. Along with Henry Nicholas, Proposition 9 received support from Crime Victims United of California and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Proposition 9 faced opposition from the California Teachers Association, SEIU California State Council, California Democratic Party, and California Federation of Teachers. Proposition 9 passed with about 54 percent of the vote and became a model for several subsequent Marsy's Law ballot measures across the United States.

Marsy's Law ballot measures

The first state to vote on Marsy's Law after California was Illinois in 2014. The constitutional amendment received 72.3 percent of the vote in Illinois.

Marsy's Law for All organized campaigns for ballot initiatives in three states in 2016—Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Voters in each state approved the ballot initiative. Montana's Marsy's Law was ruled unconstitutional in 2017 because the ballot initiative, according to the court, violated the state's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. In June 2018, the South Dakota Legislature asked voters to amend Marsy's Law via Amendment Y. Amendment Y, which was approved, was defined to narrow the definition of crime victim and require victims to opt-in to Marsy's Law's protections, rather than making those protections automatic.

In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.

The number of Marsy's Law amendments in state constitutions doubled in 2018 from six to 12. The states that voted on Marsy's Law in 2018 were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Kentucky's Marsy's Law was ruled invalid in June 2019 because the language for the ballot measure, according to the court, did not meet constitutional requirements.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on November 5, 2019. The Wisconsin State Legislature referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on April 7, 2020.

The following table describes the outcome of votes on Marsy's Law ballot measures:

State	Measure	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”	Status
California	Proposition 9	2008	53.84%	46.16%	Approved
Illinois	Amendment	2014	78.45%	21.55%	Approved
Montana	Initiative 116	2016	66.09%	33.91%	Approved (Overturned)
North Dakota	Measure 3	2016	62.03%	37.97%	Approved
South Dakota	Amendment S	2016	59.61%	40.39%	Approved (Amended)
Ohio	Issue 1	2017	82.59%	17.41%	Approved
Florida	Amendment 6	2018	61.61%	38.39%	Approved
Georgia	Amendment 4	2018	80.93%	19.07%	Approved
Kentucky	Amendment	2018	62.81%	37.19%	Approved (Overturned)
Nevada	Question 1	2018	61.19%	38.81%	Approved
North Carolina	Amendment	2018	62.13%	37.87%	Approved
Oklahoma	State Question 794	2018	78.01%	21.99%	Approved
Average			66.44%	33.56%

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio

Sponsors submitted an initiative petition, along with 2,509 signatures, to the attorney general's office on January 24, 2017. Supporters were required to turn 1,000 signatures in with the petition. On February 3, 2017, Attorney General Mike DeWine (R) determined the petition summary was fair and accurate. He then forwarded the petition to the Ohio Ballot Board. The board confirmed that the initiative met the state's single-subject rule on February 8, 2017, allowing petitions for the initiative to begin circulating.

To get the measure certified for the ballot, 305,591 valid signatures, in additional to the initial 1,000, from across the state were required. Of the total required, some needed to be collected in each of 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. The number required in a given county was equal to 5 percent of the last gubernatorial vote in that county. Signatures were due 125 days before the intended general election date. For the 2017 general election, 125 days prior was July 5, 2017.

On June 22, 2017, proponents of the initiative reported submitting 563,556 signatures to the secretary of state's office. To make the ballot, 54 percent of those signatures need to be considered valid.

On July 17, 2017, Secretary of State Jon Husted reported that 371,749 of the signatures submitted were valid and certified the initiative for the ballot. This was 66,158 more signatures than was required and meant that 66 percent of the total signatures submitted were valid. The campaign also met the distribution requirement in 54 counties.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,300,000.00 was spent to collect the 306,591 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $7.50.

Petition

The petition that supporters of Issue 1 used to collect signatures contained the following description of the initiative:

Ohio Crime Victims Bill of Rights The amendment would adopt the Ohio Crime Victims Bill of Rights by amending Article I, Section 10a of the Ohio Constitution. More specifically, the amendment would provide: for the purpose of securing for victims justice and due process in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, that victims of criminal offenses and delinquent acts have the following rights: 1. to fair and respectful treatment for the victim’s safety, dignity and privacy; 2. upon request, to notice of, and the right to be present at, all public proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct against the victim; 3. to be heard in any public proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole, or in which the victim’s rights are implicated; 4. to reasonable protection from the accused or person acting on behalf of the accused; 5. upon request, to reasonable notice of any release or escape of the accused; 6. to refuse discovery requests made by the accused, except as authorized by Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio constitution; 7. to full and timely restitution from the criminal or juvenile offender; 8. to proceedings without unreasonable delay and a prompt conclusion of the case; 9. upon request, to confer with the government’s attorney; and 10. to written notice of all rights in the amendment; that the rights of victims set forth in the amendment must be protected as vigorously as the rights of the accused; that the victim, the government’s attorney upon request of the victim, or the victim’s representative may assert the victim’s rights set forth in the amendment or afforded by law, in any proceeding involving the criminal or delinquent conduct against the victim or in which the victim’s rights are implicated, and if the relief is denied, may petition the applicable court of appeals, which must promptly consider and decide the petition; that the amendment does not establish a cause of action for damages or compensation against the state or its political subdivisions, or any officer, employee, or agent thereof, or any court official; that as used in the amendment “victim” means a person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly and proximately harmed by the offense or act, but does not include the accused or a person the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor, or incapacitated victim; that all provisions of the amendment are self-executing, severable, and supersede conflicting state law; and that the amendment takes effect ninety days after the election at which it was approved. The amendment would repeal the existing language of Article I, Section 10a, and replace it with language that, as described above, would expand the existing rights of victims and would establish new rights of victims. And although it would remove the provision in the existing section 10a directing the General Assembly to define and provide by law certain rights of victims, the amendment would not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting laws that are consistent with the amendment, nor would it negate existing laws unless they conflict with the amendment. The amendment would also remove the provisions in the existing section 10a that it: does not confer a right to appeal or modify any decision in a criminal proceeding; and does not abridge any other right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the Ohio constitution.

State profile

Demographic data for Ohio
	Ohio	U.S.
Total population:	11,605,090	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	40,861	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	82.4%	73.6%
Black/African American:	12.2%	12.6%
Asian:	1.9%	5.1%
Native American:	0.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	3.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.1%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	26.1%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$49,429	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	19.6%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Ohio. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Ohio

Ohio voted Republican in five out of the seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, nine are located in Ohio, accounting for 4.37 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Ohio had eight Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 4.42 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.

More Ohio coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Ohio
• United States congressional delegations from Ohio
• Public policy in Ohio
• Endorsers in Ohio
• Ohio fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• 2017 ballot measures
• Ohio 2017 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio
• Law enforcement on the ballot

External links

Basic information

• Initiative Petition
• Ohio 2017 Ballot Board Issues Report

Support

• Marsy's Law - Ohio
• Marsy's Law for Ohio on Facebook
• Marsy's Law for Ohio on Twitter

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Ohio Issue 1 Marsy's Law Amendment 2017. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Ohio Issue 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Initiative (2017) - Google News