Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019)

Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Amendment
Election date November 5, 2019
Topic Law enforcement
Status ot Overturned
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Pennsylvania measuresPennsylvania Marsy's Law AmendmentSubmit

The Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment was on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2019.

A majority of electors voted to approve the ballot measure. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enjoined Acting Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar from certifying election results.

On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. Therefore, the election results were not certified and the amendment was not added to the state constitution. Read more about the lawsuit here: League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Degraffenreid.

A "yes" vote supported this measure to add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

A "no" vote opposed this measure to add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy's Law, to the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Election results

Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019)
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,765,384	74.01%
No		620,104	25.99%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would this ballot measure have changed?

The ballot measure would have added a section addressing crime victims' rights to the Pennsylvania Constitution Declaration of Rights. The proposed language was modeled on Marsy's Law, a type of constitutional bill of rights for crime victims.

The ballot measure would have provided crime victims with 15 specific constitutional rights, including a right to:

• be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity, and privacy;
• proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt and final conclusion of the case;
• have the safety of the victim and victim's family considered when setting the bail amount and release conditions for the accused;
• reasonable and timely notice of public proceedings involving the criminal conduct;
• be present at public proceedings involving the criminal conduct;
• be heard at proceedings where a right of the victim is implicated, including release, sentencing, and parole proceedings;
• receive notice of any pretrial disposition of the case, with the exception of grand jury proceedings;
• provide information to be considered before the parole of the offender;
• reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on the behalf of the accused;
• reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused;
• refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused;
• full and timely restitution from the person or entity convicted;
• the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence;
• confer with the government's attorney; and
• be informed of all rights granted by the amendment.

The ballot measure would have defined crime victim as any person against whom a criminal offense or delinquent act was committed or who was directly harmed by the offense or act.

What were the existing crime victims' rights?

See also: Pennsylvania Crime Victims Act

As of 2019, the Pennsylvania Constitution did not address the rights of crime victims. However, the state had a Crime Victims Act, which was enacted as a statute in 1998. The CVA included a section titled the Crime Victims Bill of Rights. The CVA's Crime Victim Bill of Rights provided crime victims with a right to receive basic information concerning the services available for crime victims; to be notified of significant actions and proceedings within the criminal and juvenile justice systems pertaining to their case; to have a person providing assistance or support at proceedings; to be restored to pre-crime economic status through restitution, compensation, and the expeditious return of seized items; and to submit comment to the prosecutor's office or juvenile probation office on the potential reduction or dropping of charges or changing of a plea.

What other states had passed Marsy's Law?

See also: Marsy's Law

As of 2019, 12 states had passed a ballot measure for Marsy's Law. The first was in California in 2008. Between 2008 and 2012, voters had approved Marsy's Law in Illinois (2014), Montana (2016), North Dakota (2016), South Dakota (2016), Ohio (2017), Florida (2018), Georgia (2018), Kentucky (2018), Nevada (2018), North Carolina (2018), and Oklahoma (2018). Wisconsin voted on Marsy's Law on April 7, 2020. Ballotpedia identified $102.26 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 12 Marsy's Law ballot measures that were on ballots between 2008 and 2018. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 97 percent—about 99.3 million—of the total contributions. Marsy's Law is named after Henry Nicholas' sister, who was murdered in 1983.

What is the relation between defendants' rights and victims' rights, according to supporters and opponents?

The issue of how criminal defendants’ rights and crime victims’ rights relate to each other was a point of contention between supporters and opponents of Marsy’s Law. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides rights for individuals accused of a crime, also known as criminal defendants, but does not enumerate rights for crime victims. Marsy's Law for All, the national organization behind Marsy's Law, seeks to "amend state constitutions... and, eventually, the U.S. Constitution to give victims of crime rights equal to those already afforded to the accused and convicted."

Marsy's Law for Pennsylvania, which led the campaign in support of the constitutional amendment, stated that "Marsy’s Law would ensure that victims have the same co-equal rights as the accused and convicted – nothing more, nothing less." Likewise, Monroe County District Attorney David Christine Jr. said, "We have a high degree of respect for the rights of criminal defendants, because their rights are inculcated or codified right in the Constitution, the highest, most potent and important legal document that governs our authority and bounds us to the law. There should be the same level of importance, and the same effect and intensity for the rights of the victims of crime, which do not exist now."

The ACLU, including the ACLU of Pennsylvania, disagreed with the amendment's proponents. Elizabeth Randol, the legal director of the Pennsylvania ACLU, stated that Marsy's Law establishes "competing sets of rights between victims versus defendants." Because the government is responsible for bringing criminal charges against defendants, Randol said, "many of the provisions in Marsy’s Law could actually strengthen the state’s hand against a defendant, undermining the bedrock legal principles of due process and the presumption of innocence." Andy Hoover, communications director for the Pennsylvania ACLU, also stated, "One person’s rights against another person are fundamentally different than a person’s rights against the awesome power of the government. This is why our Constitution, which lays out the restrictions on government power, includes defendants’ rights and why victims’ rights are primarily contained in statute."

District Attorney Christine responded to opponents, stating, "No constitutional provision can erode another constitutional provision, especially the important ones like a right to a fair trial, or not to have to testify in their own defense. The burden always rests with us to prove their guilt, and we have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. None of that is going to change because of this, it’s just going to allow fairness and equity across the board."

Aftermath

League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Degraffenreid

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the ballot measure for Marsy's Law violate the state constitution's requirement that separate amendments receive separate votes?
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Ruling: On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that results could not be certified
Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw	Defendant(s): Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid (originally Acting Secretary Kathy Boockvar)
Plaintiff argument: The ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and therefore violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments.	Defendant argument: The ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional.

  Source: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Filed in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania (LWV) and Lorraine Haw filed litigation that challenged the Marsy's Law ballot measure as violating the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. Plaintiffs also contended that the ballot question presented to voters for Marsy's Law was a brief and incomplete summary. The litigation was filed in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on October 10, 2019.

Article XI of the Pennsylvania Constitution states, "When two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately." LWV and Haw argued that the ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and, therefore, violated Article XI. Haw, a member of Coalition to Abolish Death by Incarceration, was listed as a plaintiff because she agreed with parts of Marsy's Law but opposed others. The complaint stated, "Ms. Haw cannot vote for the parts of the amendment she agrees with without voting for other things she disagrees with. She wants to be able to vote separately on each change to the Constitution, as is her right."

Jennifer Storm, the commonwealth victim advocate, responded to the lawsuit, saying, "We’re not talking about crime victims rights and agriculture. We’re not talking about crime victims rights and voting. We’re talking about crime victims rights." Acting Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), the defendant, filed her response to the lawsuit on October 16, 2019. She said, "The Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment pertains to a single subject matter — securing victims’ rights in the criminal case in which they suffered direct harm. Every single subpart of the amendment advances this one goal."

Injunction before Election Day

On October 30, 2019, Judge Ellen Ceisler enjoined Acting Secretary of State Boockvar (D) from counting and certifying votes on the ballot measure, pending a final ruling. Judge Ceisler said she issued the injunction because approval of the constitutional amendment would have "immediate, profound, and in some instances, irreversible, consequences on the constitutional rights of the accused and in the criminal justice system." Judge Ceisler wrote the following regarding the single-subject issue:

“

This Court concludes that Petitioners have raised substantial questions as to the constitutionality of the Proposed Amendment in terms of both a violation of Article XI, Section 1's separate vote requirement, and its facial impact on other articles and sections of the Constitution. ... The Proposed Amendment addresses a wide range of subject matters including bail, discovery, due process, restitution, the right to privacy, and evidence control, all under the auspices of connecting them to victims' rights.

”

Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, responded, "This ruling reaffirms the importance of following the constitution. Despite the heated rhetoric, rather than help crime victims, the Legislature failed them in this process. They did not hold a single hearing over two legislative sessions, and they ignored the law in proposing this massive constitutional amendment. They knew better, and they should have done better."

Jennifer Riley, state director for Marsy’s Law for Pennsylvania, also responded to the injunction, stating, "We are dismayed by the decision of the Commonwealth Court to grant the injunction request. We maintain our position that the proposed amendment for Marsy’s Law satisfies the single-subject rule, and remain confident that the court will ultimately rule in favor of certifying the election results."

On October 31, 2019, acting Secretary of State Boockvar appealed the commonwealth court's injunction to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On November 4, the state Supreme Court decided in a 4-3 decision to uphold the lower court's preliminary injunction.

Ruling by Commonwealth Court

On June 10, 2020, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court heard arguments in the case.

On January 7, 2020, the Commonwealth Court, in a 3-2 decision, ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional changes. Judge Ellen H. Ceisler, who ruled against the ballot measure, wrote, "Because the constitution mandates a separate vote on each proposed constitutional amendment, and the proposed amendment fails to satisfy this mandate, disenfranchisement will occur if the electorate must vote on the proposed amendment as a unitary proposal." Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, who dissented in the case, stated, "The judgment the court enters today deprives the people of this power on the strength of no more than speculation."

Appealed to Pennsylvania Supreme Court

On February 8, 2021, Gov. Tom Wolf allowed the deadline for an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to pass. Lyndsay Kensinger, the governor's press secretary, said, "After a thorough reading of the Commonwealth Court’s ruling, the administration supports efforts to achieve constitutional protections for victims through an amendment that better aligns with the constitution’s procedural requirements."

Four individuals—Shameekah Moore, Martin Vickless, Kristin June Irwin, and Kelly Williams—intervened and appealed the case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Ruling by Supreme Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on September 21, 2021.

On December 21, 2021, the Supreme Court, in a 6-1 ruling, agreed with the Commonwealth Court that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. Justice Debra Todd wrote that the ballot measure was "a collection of amendments which added a multiplicity of new rights to our 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." She added, "Many or all of these newly enumerated rights are independent of the others, and could operate independently. In short, they are not functionally interrelated. Indeed, we can easily envision a voter supporting one or more of these rights without approving of all of them."

Justice Sallie Mundy was the one judge who dissented, stating that the ballot measure was "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 Constitution."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to grant certain rights to crime victims, including 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, so they can enforce them?

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, Pennsylvania Constitution

The measure would have added a Section 9.1 to Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The following text would have been added:

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

§ 9.1. Rights of victims of crime.

(a) To secure for victims justice and due process throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim shall have the following rights, as further provided and as defined by the General Assembly, which shall be protected in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused: to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's safety, dignity and privacy; to have the safety of the victim and the victim's family considered in fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the accused; to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present at all public proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct; to be notified of any pretrial disposition of the case; with the exception of grand jury proceedings, to be heard in any proceeding where a right of the victim is implicated, including, but not limited to, release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole and pardon; to be notified of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to provide information to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be notified of the parole of the offender; to reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused; to reasonable notice of any release or escape of the accused; to refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused; full and timely restitution from the person or entity convicted for the unlawful conduct; full and timely restitution as determined by the court in a juvenile delinquency proceeding; to the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence; to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related postconviction proceedings; to confer with the attorney for the government; and to be informed of all rights enumerated in this section.

(b) The victim or the attorney for the government upon request of the victim may assert in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority, with jurisdiction over the case, and have enforced, the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law. This section does not grant the victim party status or create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the Commonwealth or any political subdivision, nor any officer, employee or agent of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision, or any officer or employee of the court.

(c) As used in this section and as further defined by the General Assembly, the term "victim" includes any person against whom the criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is directly 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.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2019

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 secretary of state and attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 10, and the FRE is 43. The word count for the ballot title is 73, and the estimated reading time is 19 seconds.

Support

Marsy's Law for Pennsylvania led the campaign in support of the constitutional amendment.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Tom Wolf (D)
• U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D)
• Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D)
• State Victim Advocate Jennifer Storm
• U.S. Rep. Scott Perry (R-10)
• U.S. Rep. Fred Keller (R-12)
• Sen. John Sabatina (D-5)
• Sen. Thomas Killion (R-9)
• Sen. Lisa Boscola (D-18)
• Sen. Andy Dinniman (D-19)
• Sen. Lisa Baker (R-20)
• Sen. Kim Ward (R-39)
• Sen. Katie Muth (D-44)
• Rep. Sheryl Delozier (R-88)
• Rep. Marty Flynn (D-113)
• Rep. Aaron Kaufer (R-120)
• Rep. Movita Johnson-Harrell (D-190)

Municipalities

• Philadelphia City Council

Organizations

• Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape
• Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association

Individuals

• Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr.

Arguments

• Marsy's Law for Pennsylvania stated, "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 co-equal rights as the accused and convicted – nothing more, nothing less."

• Gov. Tom Wolf (D) issued a statement on Marsy's Law in April 2018, saying, "It is important for us all to reflect on how we can improve the lives of crime victims in Pennsylvania. Marsy’s Law will amend the state constitution to provide crime victims with equal protections and participation in the process. Victims and their families deserve equity."

• John T. Adams, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, said, "Currently, the rights of crime victims are not contained in our Constitution. The rights of criminal defendants are, however, and they should be. But we believe that victims and defendants should be on equal constitutional footing, and [the constitutional amendment] will do just that."

• Jennifer Storm, the Commonwealth Victim Advocate, said, "The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency in 2015 reported more than 40,000 violent crimes and nearly 845,000 crimes overall. Add up all the steps that go into prosecuting those crimes, from reporting all the way through sentencing, and that's potentially millions of times victims' rights can be disregarded, trampled or mishandled. No more."

Opposition

Opponents

• ACLU of Pennsylvania
• League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania
• Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Arguments

• Andy Hoover, communications director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said, "Contrast these [defendants’ rights] with victims’ rights, which arise out of a dispute between two private people. One person’s rights against another person are fundamentally different than a person’s rights against the awesome power of the government. This is why our Constitution, which lays out the restrictions on government power, includes defendants’ rights and why victims’ rights are primarily contained in statute."

• The Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL) filed a statement with the state Senate Judiciary Committee opposing Marsy's Law. An excerpt from the statement said, "This attempt at balancing the rights of the accused and the victim, especially in the face of the government’s vast resources and prosecutorial power, runs contrary to the reason why the Bill of Rights was enshrined in the Constitution – namely, to protect the accused, particularly those who are marginalized and unpopular, from government overreach. The state provides constitutional rights to the accused in criminal proceedings because the state is attempting to deprive the accused – not the victim – of life, liberty, and property."

• Bradley Winnick, president of PACDL and chief public defender for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, said, "You have an alleged victim now having a right essentially to a speedy trial. A 230-year-old due process right is being trampled on by someone who has done nothing but make an allegation."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Pennsylvania ballot measures

Marsy's Law for Pennsylvania, LLC registered as a political action committee (PAC) to support the constitutional amendment. The committee raised $6.85 million in cash and in-kind contributions from the national organization Marsy's Law for All Foundation. The committee spent $6.85 million.

There were no committees registered to oppose the ballot measure.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$4,450,000.00	$2,400,000.00	$6,850,000.00	$4,446,707.24	$6,846,707.24
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$4,450,000.00	$2,400,000.00	$6,850,000.00	$4,446,707.24	$6,846,707.24

Support

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

Committees in support of Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019)
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Marsy's Law for Pennsylvania, LLC	$4,450,000.00	$2,400,000.00	$6,850,000.00	$4,446,707.24	$6,846,707.24
Total	$4,450,000.00	$2,400,000.00	$6,850,000.00	$4,446,707.24	$6,846,707.24

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Marsy's Law for All Foundation	$4,450,000.00	$2,400,000.00	$6,850,000.00

Lobbying

The organization Marsy's Law for Pennsylvania, LLC registered as a lobbyist on December 11, 2017. Between December 11, 2017, and March 31, 2019, the organization spent $848,960 on lobbying efforts in Pennsylvania.

Media editorials

See also: 2019 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• York Dispatch: "If that happens, in less than a year, the victims of crimes will have their rights cemented into our state constitution. For folks who have been the unfortunate victims of crime, it will be a long-overdue change for the better."

Opposition

• The Citizen's Voice: "The opponents of Marsy’s Law make valid points that most of the protections included in the measure are already law in Pennsylvania and that the expanded victims’ rights it contains could conflict with those granted to defendants. Defendants’ rights are not in place to coddle criminals. They are rights possessed by all citizens to defend themselves against the power of the state."

Background

Pennsylvania Crime Victims Act

The Pennsylvania Crime Victims Act (CVA) was enacted as a statute in 1998. The CVA included a section titled the Crime Victims Bill of Rights. The CVA's Crime Victim Bill of Rights said that crime victims have the following rights:

• to receive basic information concerning the services available for crime victims;
• to be notified of significant actions and proceedings within the criminal and juvenile justice systems pertaining to their case, including of an offender's escape, apprehension, detainment, release, and granting or denial of bail;
• to have a family member, victim advocate, or other person providing assistance or support at proceedings;
• to submit prior comment on the sentencing of a defendant or the disposition of a delinquent child, including a victim impact statement;
• in cases of a personal injury crime or burglary, to submit prior comment to the prosecutor's office or juvenile probation office on the potential reduction or dropping of charges or changing of a plea; and
• to be restored to pre-crime economic status through restitution, compensation, and the expeditious return of seized property.

As of 2019, the full text of the CVA's Crime Victim Bill of Rights was as follows:

Victims of crime have the following rights: (1) To receive basic information concerning the services available for victims of crime. (2) To be notified of certain significant actions and proceedings within the criminal and juvenile justice systems pertaining to their case. This paragraph includes all of the following: (i) Access to information regarding whether the juvenile was detained or released following arrest and whether a petition alleging delinquency has been filed. (ii) Immediate notification of a juvenile's preadjudication escape from a detention center or shelter facility and of the juvenile's subsequent apprehension. (iii) Access to information regarding the grant or denial of bail to an adult. (iv) Immediate notification of an adult offender's pretrial escape from a local correctional facility and of the offender's subsequent apprehension. (3) To be accompanied at all criminal and all juvenile proceedings in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 6336 (relating to conduct of hearings) by a family member, a victim advocate or other person providing assistance or support. (4) In cases involving a personal injury crime or burglary, to submit prior comment to the prosecutor's office or juvenile probation office, as appropriate to the circumstances of the case, on the potential reduction or dropping of any charge or changing of a plea in a criminal or delinquency proceeding, or, diversion of any case, including an informal adjustment or consent decree. (5) To have opportunity to offer prior comment on the sentencing of a defendant or the disposition of a delinquent child, to include the submission of a written and oral victim impact statement detailing the physical, psychological and economic effects of the crime on the victim and the victim's family. The written statement shall be included in any predisposition or presentence report submitted to the court. Victim-impact statements shall be considered by a court when determining the disposition of a juvenile or sentence of an adult. (5.1) To have notice and to provide prior comment on a judicial recommendation that the defendant participate in a motivational boot camp pursuant to the act of December 19, 1990 (P.L.1391, No.215), known as the Motivational Boot Camp Act. (5.2) Upon request of the victim of a personal injury crime, to have the opportunity to submit written comment or present oral testimony at a disposition review hearing, which comment or testimony shall be considered by the court when reviewing the disposition of the juvenile. (6) To be restored, to the extent possible, to the precrime economic status through the provision of restitution, compensation and the expeditious return of property which is seized as evidence in the case when in the judgment of the prosecutor the evidence is no longer needed for prosecution of the case. (7) In personal injury crimes where the adult is sentenced to a State correctional facility, to be: (i) given the opportunity to provide prior comment on and to receive State postsentencing release decisions, including work release, furlough, parole, pardon or community treatment center placement; (ii) provided immediate notice of an escape of the adult and of subsequent apprehension; and (iii) given the opportunity to receive notice of and to provide prior comment on a recommendation sought by the Department of Corrections that the offender participate in a motivational boot camp pursuant to the Motivational Boot Camp Act. (8) In personal injury crimes where the adult is sentenced to a local correctional facility, to: (i) receive notice of the date of the release of the adult, including work release, furlough, parole, release from a boot camp or community treatment center placement; and (ii) be provided with immediate notice of an escape of the adult and of subsequent apprehension. (8.1) If, upon the request of the victim of a personal injury crime committed by a juvenile, the juvenile is ordered to residential placement, a shelter facility or a detention center, to: (i) Receive prior notice of the date of the release of the juvenile, including temporary leave or home pass. (ii) Be provided with: (A) immediate notice of an escape of the juvenile, including failure to return from temporary leave or home pass; and (B) immediate notice of reapprehension of the juvenile. (iii) Be provided with notice of transfer of a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent from a placement facility that is contrary to a previous court order or placement plan approved at a disposition review hearing and to have the opportunity to express a written objection prior to the release or transfer of the juvenile. (9) If the adult is subject to an order under 23 Pa.C.S. Ch. 61 (relating to protection from abuse) and is committed to a local correctional facility for a violation of the order or for a personal injury crime against a victim protected by the order, to receive immediate notice of the release of the adult on bail. (10) To receive notice if an adult is committed to a mental health facility from a State correctional institution and notice of the discharge, transfer or escape of the adult from the mental health facility. (11) To have assistance in the preparation of, submission of and follow-up on financial assistance claims to the bureau. (12) To be notified of the details of the final disposition of the case of a juvenile consistent with 42 Pa.C.S. § 6336(f) (relating to conduct of hearings). (13) Upon the request of the victim of a personal injury crime, to be notified of the termination of the courts' jurisdiction.

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: Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution

In Pennsylvania, a majority vote is required in two successive sessions of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

2018 legislative session

The constitutional amendment was introduced into the Pennsylvania General Assembly as Senate Bill 1011 (SB 1011) during the 2018 legislative session. On March 21, 2018, the state Senate approved SB 1011 in a unanimous 50-0 vote.

The House Judiciary Committee voted to amend SB 1011, and the full state House of Representatives took up the amended bill on June 20, 2018. The state House approved the bill in a 197-0 vote. As the state House approved an amended version of SB 1011, the state Senate needed to concur with the changes for the bill to be approved.

On June 21, 2018, the state Senate approved the amended version of SB 1011 in a vote of 48-0. As the constitutional amendment was approved during the 2018 legislative session, the amendment needed to be approved again during the 2019 legislative session to make the ballot.

Vote in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives June 20, 2018
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions; or two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber on an emergency amendment in one session
Number of yes votes required: 102  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	197	0	6
Total percent	97.04%	0.00%	2.96%
Democrat	79	0	3
Republican	118	0	3

Vote in the Pennsylvania State Senate June 21, 2018
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions; or two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber on an emergency amendment in one session
Number of yes votes required: 25  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	48	0	1
Total percent	97.96%	0.00%	2.04%
Democrat	15	0	1
Republican	33	0	0

2019 legislative session

In December 2018, Marsy's Law for Pennsylvania issued a statement, which said, "Marsy’s Law is expected to pass both chambers by June [2019], allowing for the measure to appear on the November 2019 ballot for consideration by Pennsylvania voters."

During the 2019 legislative session, the constitutional amendment was introduced as House Bill 276 (HB 276). On April 8, 2019, the state House passed HB 276 in a vote of 190-8. Of the eight state representatives to vote “No,” two were elected in November 2018, and thus weren’t seated to vote in 2018, and six switched their votes from the previous session. On June 19, 2019, the state Senate passed HB 276 in a vote of 50-0.

With approval in the House and Senate in 2018 and 2019, the constitutional amendment was certified to appear on the ballot.

Vote in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives April 8, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions; or two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber on an emergency amendment in one session
Number of yes votes required: 102  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	190	8	4
Total percent	94.06%	3.96%	1.98%
Democrat	84	7	2
Republican	106	1	2

Vote in the Pennsylvania State Senate June 19, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber in two sessions; or two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber on an emergency amendment in one session
Number of yes votes required: 26  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	50	0	0
Total percent	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Democrat	22	0	0
Republican	28	0	0

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Pennsylvania

Poll times

In Pennsylvania, all polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Pennsylvania, an applicant must be a citizen of the United States for at least one month before the next election, a resident of the district in which he or she is registering for at least 30 days before the next election, and at least 18 years old by the day of the next election. The deadline for registering to vote is 15 days before the election. Registration can be done online, in person, or by mail. Prospective voters can register in person at the county voter registration office or at a number of state agencies, including Pennsylvania Department of Transportation centers. The Pennsylvania voter registration application is available online and can be mailed to the county voter registration office. On September 19, 2023, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) announced that the state had implemented automatic voter registration.

Automatic registration

Pennsylvania practices automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Pennsylvania implemented an online voter registration system in 2015. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Pennsylvania does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Prospective voters must be residents of the district in which they are registering for at least 30 days before the next election.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Pennsylvania does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. As of January 2025, six states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Pennsylvania Department of State allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Pennsylvania does not generally require voters to present identification while voting. However, a voter who is voting at a polling place for the first time must present identification.

Voters can present the following forms of identification. This list was current as of October 2024. Click here to ensure you have current information.

“

Approved forms of photo identification include: Pennsylvania driver’s license or PennDOT ID card ID issued by any Commonwealth agency ID issued by the U.S. Government U.S. passport U.S. Armed Forces ID Student ID Employee ID If you do not have a photo ID, you can use a non-photo identification that includes your name and address. Confirmation issued by the County Voter Registration Office Non-photo ID issued by the Commonwealth Non-photo ID issued by the U.S. Government Firearm permit Current utility bill Current bank statement Current paycheck Government check

”

See also

2019 measures

• 2019 ballot measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot
• Civil and criminal trials on the ballot

Pennsylvania

• Pennsylvania ballot measures
• Pennsylvania ballot measure laws
• Marsy's Law crime victim rights

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Measure

• Senate Bill 1011 (2018)
• House Bill 276 (2019)