Pennsylvania appellate judge bars state from counting Marsy's Law votes

[TexasTowelie]

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court said Wednesday that votes on the victims' rights referendum question known as Marsy’s Law that will be on Tuesday's ballots may not be counted by the state because the question does not " 'fairly, accurately and clearly' apprise the electorate of the question upon which it is asked to vote."

Judge Ellen Ceisler granted a preliminary injunction that was requested by the state League of Women Voters, which filed a lawsuit Oct. 10 challenging the ballot question. The court heard argument a week ago.

Jennifer Riley, state director for Marsy’s Law for Pennsylvania, said in a statement that the challenge to the ballot initiative "represents an overwhelming disservice to both survivors and voters across Pennsylvania, many of whom have already cast their votes on the Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment.

“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.”

Read more: https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2019/10/30/Judge-says-state-can-t-tally-victims-rights-amendment-votes/stories/201910300155

[Jake Stern]

1. Great news

Marsy's Law is built on good intentions but is horrible in practice.

From the ACLU on Marsy's Law:

Marsy’s Law is premised on the notion that victims should have “equal rights” to defendants. This opening salvo is a seductive appeal to one’s sense of fairness. However, the notion that victims’ rights can be equated to the rights of the accused is a fallacy. It ignores the very different purposes these two sets of rights serve.

The U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions guarantee defendants’ rights because they are rights against the state, not because they are valued more by society than victims’ rights. Defendants’ rights only apply when the state is attempting to deprive the accused – not the victim – of life, liberty, or property. They serve as essential checks against government abuse, preventing the government from arresting and imprisoning anyone, for any reason, at any time.

As a victim of crime I certainly empathize with other victims but the civil libertarian in me cannot abide any law which effectively strips due process rights from someone facing imprisonment.

Read more: https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victims-rights-proposals-marsys-law-undermine-due-process

[DeminPennswoods]

2. Shapiro will appeal

although I believe the state supreme court will uphold the lower court decision.