Amending the PA constitution via Marsy’s Law on 2019 ballot

I am not going to review the entire list, however these two stood out to me.


#1 • proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt and final conclusion of the case;

#2 • have the safety of the victim and victim's family considered when setting the bail amount and release conditions for the accused;



#1 LOL Court cases and investigations take time. Real life isn't a TV show. Cases can take months or even years to complete. Not in one hour with fifteen minutes of commercials.


#2 Bail is to ensure the return of the Defendant, not to punish the Defendant.


On the surface this sounds like a great idea, however its not something I can support

What are the chances of these types of alterations to the states constitution passing?

I am deeply concerned with the bias in the wording of the official ballot title. This is what people will have to read, comprehend, and decide to vote yes or NO to on election day:

"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?"


This wording diminishes the impact to the rights of the defendant and buries the most significant element nearly 3/4 of the way through the sentence.

Who would want to vote against "[granting] certain rights to crime victims, including to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity..."? How many people do you think will read far enough to get to the "right to refuse discovery requests made by the accused" clause, let alone understand its implications?

Asking those who know better about PA Amendment and ballot initiative procedures: Can/could a PA judge theoretically stop this from either 1) going on the ballot before the election, or 2) preventing it from going into effect in the event that it gets passed? (Assuming primary arguments would be on grounds of violating the 6th and 14th Amendments to US Constitution.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buckengr

I am deeply concerned with the bias in the wording of the official ballot title:



This wording diminishes the impact to the rights of the defendant. Who would want to vote against "[granting] certain rights to crime victims, including to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity..."? How many people do you think will read far enough to get to the "refuse an interview" line, let alone understand its implications?

Asking those who know better about PA Amendment and ballot initiative procedures: Can/could a PA judge theoretically stop this from either 1) going on the ballot before the election, or 2) preventing it from going into effect in the event that it gets passed? (Assuming primary arguments would be on grounds of violating the 6th and 14th Amendments to US Constitution.)

---

Previous ballot questions were stopped by a judge because the wording was vague.

Never amend the constitution

Ballot questions are ALMOST ALWAYS written in a biased manner for the desired effect of tricking people to vote "YES".


If it sounds too good to be true - it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by streaker69

That right there is why they want it to be a constitutional amendment and not a bill. There are too many times where someone is lying about the accused and not allowing the defense to interview the accuser really hamstrings the defense.

---

That sentence stuck out to me too, as not passing the test for allowing the accused a fair trial. So would be struck down by Federal Court? IANAL, but just didn't sound right. I'm voting against.

When a billionaire donates massive amounts of monies for ad campaigns to advocate for alterations in state constitutions, and when these alterations are primarily supported by Democrats and RINOs, one can be certain that no good can come of it.

See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carterc...-million-push/

ACLU Press Release
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/...wsuit-voids-ci

NOVEMBER 1, 2017
HELENA, MT – The Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ACLU of Montana’s lawsuit today that CI-116, commonly referred to as Marsy’s Law, is unconstitutional and is “void in its entirety.”

The billionaire behind the push for Marsy's Law has had some legal problems of his own.

See: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-...egas-drug-case