California Proposition 9, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2008)

California Proposition 8
Election date November 4, 2008
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 9 was on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute in California on November 4, 2008. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported adding specific rights of crime victims, together known as Marsy's Law, to the California Constitution.

A "no" vote opposed adding specific rights of crime victims, together known as Marsy's Law, to the California Constitution.

Aftermath

In January of 2012, federal judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the parts of Proposition 9 that govern the revocation of parole were unconstitutional. (Read more below.)

Election results

California Proposition 9
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		6,682,465	53.84%
No		5,728,968	46.16%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 9 altered laws governing victim's rights in California. It amended the California Constitution to add new provisions regarding victims of crimes.

Under the provisions of Proposition 9:

• Victims and their families are to be notified during all aspects of the justice process, including bail, sentencing and parole.
• Authorities must take a victims' safety into concern when assigning bail or conducting a parole review.
• The number of people allowed to attend and testify on behalf of the victim at parole hearings increased.
• The number of parole hearings prisoners were entitled to was decreased.
• Victims received written notification of their constitutional rights.
• Timelines and procedures for parole revocation hearings were established.

California voters first approved official victims' rights in 1982 when they voted on Proposition 8, The Victims' Bill of Rights.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 9 was as follows:

“

Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. • Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole. • Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings. • Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled. • Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights. • Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

Proposition 9 amended Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

“

Potential loss of future state savings on prison operations and potential increased county jail operating costs that could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, due to restricting the early release of inmates to reduce facility overcrowding. Net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually for the administration of parole hearings and revocations, unless the changes in parole revocation procedures were found to conflict with federal legal requirements.

”

Support

"Yes on 9" website banner

Yes on 9 led the campaign in support of Proposition 9. The campaign was sponsored by Henry Nicholas and his family. Nicholas, who donated $4,845,000.00 to the campaign to put Marsy's Law on the ballot, stepped away from active support of the Marsy's Law campaign when a criminal indictment on drug and securities offenses was unsealed in June 2008.

Supporters

• California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
• California Farm Bureau Federation
• Crime Victims United of California

Official arguments

The official arguments submitted for the voter guide were signed by Marcella Leach, co-founder of Justice for Homicide Victims; Lawanda Hawkins, founder of Justice for Murdered Children; and Dan Levey, president of The National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children:

“

No pain is worse than losing a child or a loved one to murder . . . EXCEPT WHEN THE PAIN IS MAGNIFIED BY A SYSTEM THAT PUTS CRIMINALS’ RIGHTS AHEAD OF THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT VICTIMS. The pain is real. It’s also unnecessary to victims and costly to taxpayers. Marsy Nicholas was a 21-year-old college student at UC Santa Barbara studying to become a teacher for disabled children. Her boyfriend ended her promising life with a shotgun blast at close range. Due to a broken system, the pain of losing Marsy was just the beginning. Marsy’s mother, Marcella, and family were grieving, experiencing pain unlike anything they’d ever felt. The only comfort was the fact Marsy’s murderer was arrested. Imagine Marcella’s agony when she came face-to-face with Marsy’s killer days later . . . at the grocery store! How could he be free? He’d just killed Marcella’s little girl. This can’t be happening, she thought. Marsy’s killer was free on bail but her family wasn’t even notified. He could’ve easily killed again. CALIFORNIA’S CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES RIGHTS FOR RAPISTS, MURDERERS, CHILD MOLESTERS, AND DANGEROUS CRIMINALS. PROPOSITION 9 LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD, GUARANTEEING CRIME VICTIMS THE RIGHT TO JUSTICE AND DUE PROCESS, ending further victimization of innocent people by a system that frequently neglects, ignores, and forever punishes them. Proposition 9 creates California’s Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights to: REQUIRE THAT A VICTIM AND THEIR FAMILY’S SAFETY MUST BE CONSIDERED BY JUDGES MAKING BAIL DECISIONS FOR ACCUSED CRIMINALS. Mandate that crime victims be notified if their offender is released. REQUIRE VICTIMS BE NOTIFIED OF PAROLE HEARINGS IN ADVANCE TO ENSURE THEY CAN ATTEND AND HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. Require that victims be notified and allowed to participate in critical proceedings related to the crime, including bail, plea bargain, sentencing, and parole hearings. Give victims a constitutional right to prevent release of their personal confidential information or records to criminal defendants. During these difficult budget times, PROP. 9 PROTECTS TAXPAYERS. Currently, taxpayers spend millions on hearings for dangerous criminals that have virtually no chance of release. 'Helter Skelter' inmates Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten, followers of Charles Manson, convicted of multiple brutal murders, have had 38 parole hearings in 30 years. That’s 38 times the families involved have been forced to relive the painful crime and pay their own expenses to attend the hearing, plus 38 hearings that taxpayers have had to subsidize. Prop. 9 allows parole judges to increase the number of years between parole hearings. CALIFORNIA’S NONPARTISAN LEGISLATIVE ANALYST SAID IT ACHIEVES, 'POTENTIAL NET SAVINGS IN THE LOW TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . ..' PROP. 9 ALSO PREVENTS POLITICIANS FROM RELEASING DANGEROUS INMATES TO ALLEVIATE PRISON OVERCROWDING. Prop. 9 respects victims, protects taxpayers, and makes California safer. It’s endorsed by public safety leaders, victims’ advocates, taxpayers, and working families. PROP. 9 IS ABOUT FAIRNESS FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. They deserve rights equal to those of criminals. ON BEHALF OF ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE CRIME VICTIMS, PLEASE VOTE YES ON 9!

”

Opposition

"No on 9" website banner

The No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and Fiscal Responsibility committee filed with the California Secretary of State as an opposition group.

Opponents

• California Democratic Party
• California Professional Firefighters
• California Teachers Association
• California Church IMPACT
• The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
• The American Friends Service Committee Pacific Mountain Region

Official arguments

The official arguments submitted for the voter guide in opposition to Proposition 9 were signed by Sheila A. Bedi, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute and Allan Breed, former director of the California Department of Corrections:

“

Aren’t you getting tired of one individual paying millions to put some idea, however well-meaning, on the ballot that ends up costing taxpayers billions? Prop. 9 is the poster child for this, bought and paid for by one man—Henry Nicholas III. Prop. 9 is a misleading proposition that exploits Californians’ concern for crime victims. It preys on our emotions in order to rewrite the State Constitution and change the way California manages its prisons and jails, threatening to worsen our overcrowding crises, at both the state and local level. Prop. 9 is a costly, unnecessary initiative. In fact, many of the components in Prop. 9—including the requirements that victims be notified of critical points in an offender’s legal process as well as the rights for victims to be heard throughout the legal process—were already approved by voters in Prop. 8 in 1982, the Victims’ Bill of Rights. That’s why Prop. 9 is truly unnecessary and an expensive duplication of effort. According to the Appeal Democrat newspaper, 'this initiative is about little more than political grandstanding,' ('Our View: Tough talk on crime just hot air,' 3/1/08). Voters sometimes don’t realize that there is no mechanism for initiatives to be legally reviewed for duplication of current law. So, sometimes if it seems like a way to get something passed, the writers include current law in their initiatives. That’s clearly what has been done in Prop. 9. Californians are understandably concerned about safety and sympathetic to crime victims. Some of the provisions seem reasonable. Yet they hardly require an initiative to accomplish them. For instance, passage of Prop. 9 would require law enforcement to give victims a “Marsy’s Law” card spelling out their rights. Does the state really need to put this in the State Constitution? And at what cost? Prop. 9 promises to stop the early release of criminals. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says this could potentially 'amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.' The Legislative Analyst also points out that 'the state does not now generally release inmates early from prison.' California’s parole system is already among the most strict in the United States. The actual annual parole rate for those convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter has been less than 1% of those eligible for 20 years! So, the need for these tremendously costly changes to existing parole policy is unjustified given the costs involved. Further, anything approved in Prop. 9 regarding prisoners and parole is subject to federal legal challenges. So, the likelihood that Prop. 9 would have any impact at all is negligible at best. Taking money out of an already cash-strapped state budget to pay for an unnecessary initiative could mean cuts to every other priority of Government, including education, healthcare, and services for the poor and elderly. Vote No on Prop. 9. It’s unnecessary. It’s expensive. It’s bad law.

”

Media editorials

2008 propositions
February 5
Proposition 91 • Proposition 92
Proposition 93 • Proposition 94
Proposition 95 • Proposition 96
Proposition 97
June 3
Proposition 98 • Proposition 99
November 4
Proposition 1A • Proposition 2
Proposition 5 • Proposition 6
Proposition 7 • Proposition 8
Proposition 9 • Proposition 10
Proposition 11 • Proposition 12
Local measures

Support

• The Eureka Reporter
• Gay and Lesbian Times

Opposition

The Los Angeles Times encouraged a "no" vote on 9, saying, "If the concern is protection of families from further victimization, as proponents claim, that goal can be met without granting families a new and inappropriate role in prosecutions."

Other editorial boards opposed:

Pasadena Star News Press Democrat Press Enterprise Tracy Press San Diego Union Tribune Orange County Register Sacramento Bee San Francisco Chronicle Bakersfield Californian La Opinion

Fresno Bee Woodland Daily Democrat San Jose Mercury News Chico Enterprise-Record Stockton Record New York Times Contra Costa Times San Gabriel Valley Tribune Napa Valley Register Salinas Californian

Monterey County Herald Long Beach Press-Telegram Desert Dispatch The Vacaville Reporter Los Angeles Daily News Santa Cruz Sentinel The Modesto Bee The Appeal-Democrat Redding Record Searchlight Milpitas Post

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Valdivia v. Brown

2012 measure lawsuits
By state
Arizona • Arkansas • Colorado • Florida • Maryland Michigan • Massachusetts • Minnesota Missouri • Montana • Nevada North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma Oregon • Rhode Island
By lawsuit type
Ballot text Campaign contributions Constitutionality Motivation of sponsors Petitioner residency Post-certification removal Single-subject rule Signature challenges Initiative process

2012 ruling

On January 24, 2012, U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton ruled in the class-action lawsuit case Valdivia v. Brown (S-94-671 LKK) that the part of the Victims' Bill of Rights created under Proposition 9 which govern parole revocation was unconstitutional. Karlton stated that the parole revocation laws, which had been codified in the state penal code, in part violated minimum due process provided by the constitution and affirmed under two U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 (Morrissey v. Brewer) and 1973 (Gagnon v. Scarpell). The law was also found to violate certain rights to a lawyer and rights to a neutral and detached hearing body. While several provisions were upheld, Karlton ruled that they could not stand alone and therefore struck down the entire parole revocation law.

• The ruling can be found here.

2009 and 2010 rulings

On March 26, 2009, Karlton had blocked part of the measure, arguing that the proposition did not nullify the administration's settlement of the class-action inmate rights lawsuit. The judge had previously issued a stay on a portion of the measure after the November election.

However, in March 2010, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned the 2009 Karlton ruling and said that Proposition 9's provision that legal counsel must be provided by the state only in particularly complex cases can stand.

Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation said of the March 2010 decision, "Today's decision makes it clear that a judge's order to grant more rights to parolees than constitutionally required does not trump a state constitutional amendment adopted by the people." Scheidegger helped draft Proposition 9.

Federal appellate judges John T. Noonan, Michael Daly Hawkins and Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote the decision upholding Proposition 9. Their decision says:

"Because the district court made no express determination that any aspect of the California parole revocation procedures, as modified by Proposition 9, violated constitutional rights, or that the injunction was necessary to remedy a constitutional violation, we vacate and remand the March 2009 order for the district court to make that determination and reconcile the injunction with California law as expressed in Proposition 9."

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2008, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.

Proposition 9 supporters turned in over 1.2 million petition signatures in April 2008 to qualify the measure for the November 2008 ballot..

The signature-gathering drive to qualify Proposition 9 for the ballot was managed by Bader & Associates, Inc., a petition management company owned by Tom Bader and Joy Bader, at a cost of $2,258,034.00.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Crime victims' rights on the ballot
• Criminal trials on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information:

• Official Voter's Guide to Proposition 9
• Full text of Proposition 9
• Summary of donors to and against Proposition 9 from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 9 from Follow The Money

Supporters:

• Friends of Marsy's Law
• Website of supporters
• Campaign finance filings of support committee

Opponents:

• No on Proposition 9 campaign website
• Vote No on 9 grassroots website
• Props. 6 and 9 Reader, Harvard Law School blog
• Curb Prison Spending/No on 9 (dead link)