Public Affairs Campaign: Marsy's Law by Strategies 360

Marsyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Law PUBLIC AFFAIRS CAMPAIGN PUBLIC RELATIONS DIVISION

ENTRANTS Todd Dvorak

STRATEGIES 360

We are Change Makers

SHAPING BUSINESS, POLITICS, AND CULTURE IN THE SPIRIT OF THE WEST.

Project Summary THE CHALLENGE

Marsy’s Law for Idaho is a proposed constitutional amendment designed to update and strengthen Idaho’s rights for crime victims. Strategies 360 entered the campaign mid-swing, after the resolution failed to win necessary approval in the Idaho House of Representatives. The Senate approved the resolution 34-0, but political differences bogged it down in the House. When Strategies 360 got on board, the goal remained legislative approval, followed by voter approval in the general election. Strategies 360 also worked with lobbying and political teams on the campaign. In the period between the 2017 and 2018 Legislature, the focus for all parties was on turning “No” votes to “Yes,” speciﬁcally in the House Committee that torpedoed the resolution.

THE STRATEGY

One of the weaknesses in the first legislative attempt was Marsy’s Law was introduced with no fanfare, no campaign launch event and very little media education. This was by design at the time. But in the wake of the defeat, it was time to change course. Strategies 360, working with the lobby/political team, developed a grassroots approach to building support, at the same time applying pressure through the media to turn votes. Strategies 360 identified media education as a critical component for future success and conveying accurate message. Goals and strategy included: • Coordinate with lobby/political teams for a 2018 campaign launch, including press conference, media kit and goal of engaging statewide media • Drafting series of LTEs, and op-eds from influencers targeting specific “No Vote” legislators. • Educate reporters, editors and editorial boards on the specifics of Marsy’s Law and state-bystate differences of versions of Marsy’s Law considered across the country. As part of this, pitch story ideas to generate coverage during the legislative off-season. • Collaborate to coordinate public information sessions to engage lawmakers, law enforcement and victim coordinators to build support. • Build momentum in the run-up to the 2018 Legislature, with LTE barrage, endorsement press releases, and newsletters. • Manage the campaign’s social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter).

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

Project Summary, Continued THE SUCCESS

The campaign launch, underpinned by outreach and video products to earn coverage outside the Boise market, met, if not exceeded client expectations. In a state like Idaho, it’s a hard sell to win original, same-day coverage of a Boise press conference. Strategies 360 delivered some original content in markets like Lewiston, Idaho Falls and Moscow by providing live-streaming and on-deadline video clips that were used by newspapers and television alike. It also helped to have the Associated Press at the Boise media event, ensuring coverage to AP membership statewide. S360 prepared a media kit, wrote speeches and talking points in addition to the live-stream and video component. Other coverage during the legislative off-season included front-cover stories in several papers featuring victims making the case for Marsy’s Law; front-cover stories on the campaign’s December release of an Economic Impact Analysis, the goal of which was to mitigate arguments made by opponents that the law would create an economic burden on government. Earned media also includes placement of several Guest Columns and LTEs in papers big and small around the state.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

CONTENTS 5 7 11 15 17 21 36

Press Release FAQs Talking Points Campaign Website Blog Post Guest Opinion Rebuttal News Clips Letter to the Editor

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Sept. 25, 2017 Media Contact: Todd Dvorak, Strategies 360 (208) 340-6265, toddd@strategies360.com

Marsy’s Law for Idaho Launches Legislative Campaign BOISE – A coalition of state lawmakers, law enforcement leaders, victim advocates and crime victims formally launched on Monday the statewide campaign for Marsy’s Law for Idaho, outlining the campaign’s goals of updating and strengthening crime victims’ rights. The proposed constitutional amendment would build upon the Victims’ Rights Amendment Idaho voters overwhelmingly approved in 1994. New provisions include additional notification for victims, giving victims a stronger voice in the justice system and putting those rights on an equal footing with those afforded to defendants. Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, the Marsy’s Law for Idaho sponsor in the Senate, said the time is right to take this next step on behalf of crime victims across the state. “We have the need and opportunity in Idaho to strengthen crime victims’ rights in our constitution. The victim must have an opportunity to have their voices heard and considered in the criminal justice system,” Lakey said Monday. “I am proud to be working with Marsy’s Law for Idaho to ensure the rights of crime victims in Idaho are constitutionally protected like those of the accused or convicted,” Lakey said. Marsy’s Law has recently received endorsements from the Idaho Sheriff’s Association and the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which represents more than 1,800 law enforcement officers statewide. “It’s important to understand that Marsy’s Law for Idaho has been written by Idahoans specifically to address the needs of victims in our state,” said Rep. Brent Crane, RNampa. “Marsy’s Law is a priority for me in the 2018 session and I look forward to working with my fellow legislators to pass this important amendment.” Marsy’s Law for Idaho is affiliated with the national advocacy group, Marsy’s Law for All, which is dedicated to strengthening victims’ rights across the country. Marsy’s Law has been approved by lawmakers and voters in several states and the campaign is currently working in eight other states to enhance victims’ rights.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

Press Release The proposed constitutional amendment, once approved by the Legislature, would then be placed on the general election ballot in November 2018. Monday’s press conference also included remarks from crime victim Lauren Busdon, Owyhee County Sheriff Perry Grant and Paul Jagosh, legislative chair for the FOP. Other individuals or groups either in attendance or supportive of Marsy’s Law for Idaho included Ada County Prosecutor Jan Bennetts, the Idaho Council on Domestic Violence and Victim Assistance and the Idaho Victim Witness Association. Media and citizens unable to attend can tune in to watch the press conference via live stream on two platforms: • http://idahoptv.org/insession/leg.cfm • https://www.facebook.com/MarsysLawforID/ Marsy’s Law for Idaho can be found on Facebook and Twitter at: https://www.facebook.com/MarsysLawforID/ @MarsysLawforID ### ABOUT MARSY’S LAW FOR IDAHO Marsy’s Law for Idaho is the Idaho chapter of the national advocacy group Marsy’s Law for All, which is dedicated to strengthening victims’ rights. The goal of Marsy’s Law for Idaho is to ensure the right of victims to have an effective voice in the criminal justice process. Victims are the individuals most harmed by crime and are sometimes an afterthought in our system— even though some rights are currently afforded through Idaho’s constitution and statute. A proposed constitutional amendment for victims' rights, written by and for Idahoans, would not place any significant burden on state employees or those providing victim service support using state funds. Idaho once led the nation on victims’ rights. It was one of the first states to provide rights for crime victims. In November 1994, a state Constitutional Amendment on Victims’ Rights overwhelmingly passed with 79% of the vote. Over twenty years have passed, and more work needs to be done. In 2016, the Idaho Attorney General argued before the Idaho Supreme Court that neither the Idaho Constitution nor Idaho Statutes provided a mechanism to enforce victims’ rights (Mitchell V. State 160 Idaho 81 (2016)). It’s time for victims’ rights to be increased and strengthened in the Idaho Constitution, so Idaho can lead the nation once again .

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

FAQs FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Sept. 21, 2017 Media Contact: Todd Dvorak: (208) 340-6265

Marsy’s Law FAQs BOISE – Marsy’s Law for Idaho is part of a national campaign to strengthen the rights of crime victims. The campaign in Idaho involves amending the state constitution with language drafted by Idahoans and tailored specifically to Idaho. A constitutional amendment requires approval of both chambers of the Idaho Legislature and then a two-thirds majority vote in the November 2018 general election. The approval process will begin when the Idaho Legislature convenes in January. Below are some answers to frequently asked questions about Marsy’s Law. For other information and details, please visit: https://marsyslaw.us/marsys-law-state-efforts/idaho/ Q: States often provide victims with a statutory set of rights for crime victims, so shouldn’t that be sufficient rather than taking the steps necessary to amend the constitution? The fact is, in our justice system statutory rights are not on the same equal level as constitutional rights. Moreover, statutory rights are insufficient and illusory because they are not enforced and can be changed by simple majorities. Putting these rights in our constitution is critical to leveling the legal playing field because in a court of law, constitutional rights outweigh statutory rights. Providing stronger constitutional rights to victims gives the court the ability to weigh equally the rights of the victim with those of the defendant, whereas statutory rights will always be inferior to constitutional rights. It is essential to understand that judges will still have the discretion to balance those rights to determine what is in the best interest of justice in each case and circumstance. Q: So, if the goal is to elevate the rights afforded victims, will that create a situation where victim rights will trump the long-established rights of the defendants? Not at all. Victims’ rights will not supersede defendants’ constitutional rights. Victims’ constitutional rights create balance with those of the defendants. Our government, state

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

FAQs and federal, is founded on a system of checks and balances. The courts will have the authority to balance rights if a conflict arises between a victim’s right and those of a defendant. Q: As we create, or update, new victims’ rights, won’t we also be creating more burdens for local government, and with that increased costs for counties and cities? Marsy’s Law will not lead to any significant economic burdens or costs for state or local government. This is largely because of all the work that’s been done statewide since voters approved the Victims’ Rights Amendment in 1994. As a result, the state created a victim notification network (VINE Network), which is funded through defendant court fees. Moreover, many prosecutors’ offices have developed methods to provide victims with notice and information cheaply and efficiently. Other than notice, there is very little cost involved in the rights updates being proposed. Q: Since Idaho is recognized as having strong victims’ rights laws already, why is it necessary to pass a new amendment? Yes, Idaho was at the forefront in the original campaign for stronger victims’ rights. But time and experience have exposed some gaps in our protections for victims, highlighted new ways victims are overlooked or in some cases how those existing rights are not enforced or stand up to the rights of the accused. Marsy’s Law for Idaho is about giving victims constitutional standing equal to that of accused and convicted criminals – no more, no less. Victims are the ones hurt by criminals, and yet we often treat them as though they have nothing at stake. In addition, in 2016, the Idaho Attorney General argued before the Idaho Supreme Court that neither the Idaho Constitution nor Idaho statutes provided a clear mechanism to enforce victims’ rights (Mitchel v. State 160 Idaho 81) Q: Won’t the additional rights sought by Marsy’s Law for Idaho, including giving victims the ability to “confer” with prosecutors and additional notification requirements, prolong trials and place new burdens on judges and the courts? Idaho has had victims’ rights in place since 1994 and there is no evidence to suggest that the pace and efficiency of the court system has been negatively impacted by those rights. Nationwide, more than 30 states have in place constitutional victims’ rights and their criminal courts have not been derailed. Speaking to victims before finalizing a plea agreement or bail hearing is common sense. Marsy’s Law is designed to give victims a voice, not a veto.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

FAQs The 1994 Victims’ Rights Amendment gave victims the right to “communicate” with prosecutors, but it’s not clear or universal what “communication” means and achieves in each case. While a right to communicate was something of an innovation when added to the Idaho Constitution in 1994, the right to “confer” is more consistent with the current understanding of crime victims’ rights in 2017. For example, a victims’ right to “confer” with the prosecution is currently found in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act as well as various state enactments. Nothing in Marsy’s Law would infringe on prosecutors’ authority and discretion to do their job and act in the best interests of justice. With respect to court hearings and the overall pace of the justice system, court hearings are normally scheduled days, weeks and months in advance. This is sufficient time to contact victims. Q: Would changes sought by Marsy’s Law have the effect of changing, even expanding, the definition of a victim? The resolution that will be introduced in the 2018 Legislature, much like the one approved by the Senate 34-0 in 2017, elevates the definition of “crime victim” from statutory provision to a constitutional provision. Under the current constitutional provision, “crime victims” are protected – but only so long as the Legislature has adopted a statute defining and protecting them. As a matter of public policy, it is far better for a core constitutional right to be “self-executing” by containing its own definition of a “victim.” Marsy’s Law for Idaho follows this approach by defining who is a “victim” under the Constitution: As used in this section, a “crime victim” shall include any person or entity directly and proximately harmed by the commission of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving physical injury, threatened physical injury or a sexual offense, or a person or entity against whom such an offense is committed and may be further expanded in law. This definition of “crime victim” is a standard definition, as it currently appears (for example) in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which defines “victim” as a person “directly and proximately harmed” by a federal crime. The definition has two conventional legal components. First, a victim must be “directly” harmed (i.e., the harm the victim suffered must have been a “but for” result of the crime at issue in the case).

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

FAQs Second, the harm must be one that is “proximately caused” by the crime at issue, which means that the harm is a reasonably connected consequence of the crime. Because this definition has been used in other enactments, Idaho’s courts will be able to draw on an existing body of law to avoid disputes about who qualifies for protection under the amendment. Q: Idaho has a series of notification rights for victims already, what additional notifications could possibly necessary in the process before or after an offender is convicted? Marsy’s Law for Idaho would add to Idaho’s existing constitutional protections a right for a crime victim to “receive reasonable and timely notification of escape or absconsion from probation or parole.” A defendant not yet convicted may threaten, or indeed carry out, violence to permanently silence the victim and prevent subsequent testimony. Or a convicted offender may later attack the victim in a quest for revenge. These dangers are particularly pronounced for victims of domestic violence and rape, as documented cases of crime victims being murdered by those who have victimized them sadly attest. This provision properly recognizes that defendants and convicted offenders who escape pose special dangers to their victims. The amendment would provide notice to victims of the release or escape of defendants, so that victims would at least be aware of the risk an offender might pose. This provision is timely given recent media reports. Last weekend, it was reported in Boise-area media that a man accused of domestic violence escaped custody in Canyon County and immediately went to the home of the woman he’s accused of beating. Q: In what other ways would the rights of victims be expanded or changed by Marsy’s Law for Idaho? The Idaho version of Marsy’s Law makes clear that crime victims possess rights not only during the initial trial-and-sentencing phase of the process, but through all later stages. This would be accomplished by defining a “criminal justice proceeding” in which victims have rights as meaning any “trial court, appellate and post-conviction proceedings, including acceptance of a plea of guilty, sentencing, parole proceedings, parole discharge, change in probation status, commutation, pardon, post-arrest and postconviction release, and any proceeding during which a right of the crime victim is implicated. ...” This is an important addition, because victims’ interests in the criminal justice process do not end when a defendant is sentenced by the trial judge, but continue through the time he remains in custody or is under any form of supervision.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 10

Talking Points

Marsy’s Law for Idaho-Press Conference Monday Sept. 25, 10:30 a.m. EW-42 Bullet Points: Sen. Todd Lakey

• Introduce yourself, talk about your role in Senate leadership. Welcome everyone here and tuning in on the live streaming platforms. (Keep in mind that people tuning in on the livestream may not be as familiar with you as those in the room). • Before I begin talking about Marsy’s Law --- I want to take a moment to recognize that today is the National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims. Exactly 10 years ago, Congress designated September 25 as a day for all of us to remember and honor those lost to homicide --- and to recognize all of the people victimized by that horrible crime. • In cities and small towns across the country --- victims, advocates and supporters are taking a moment today to focus in the impact murder can have on families, loved ones, friends and communities. • We’re fortunate in a way here in Idaho in that we don’t have a murder rate as high as in some other states. Still, last year the Idaho State Police reported a total of 47 homicides statewide --- one almost every 8 days. • Not only does each of those cases represent a senseless and needless loss of life, but they also change forever the lives of spouses, parents, siblings and friends.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 11

Talking Points

• The ripple effect is the creation of a whole new set of victims.

• It’s those victims --- as well as victims of so many other violent crimes --- that we’re here to talk about today. HISTORY: • As a state, Idaho has served as a leader in the effort to strengthen and enhance victims’ rights. • In 1994, we overwhelmingly passed the Victims’ Rights Amendment. That decision by voters provided that, among other things, that victims: o Be treated with respect, fairness and dignity throughout the justice process; o Receive prior notification of trial court, appellate and parole proceedings, and; o Have the right to communicate with prosecutors. • The Victims’ Rights Amendment was a great step --- but I believe it’s time to do more. • This is why I decided to sponsor the Marsy’s Law resolution (SJR 103) in the Senate earlier this year. • It’s why I will once again sponsor and introduce Marsy’s Law in the Senate next year. • The fact is --- even with all the good work of the past --- we’ve learned some things over the last 23 years.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 12

Talking Points

• Our victims’ rights language should be updated based on experience, loopholes that have emerged and some new ideas for enhancing the rights of victims. (You can riff here, but some of the updates you could mention include: o The right to confer with prosecutors o Putting victims’ rights on a level field with defendants o Additional notification requirements

• As you may know, Marsy’s Law is a national campaign. It’s been making a difference in states like California and Illinois now for several years. • It recently passed in three other states and advocates are currently working to get Marsy’s Law on the ballot in eight other states. • But it’s important to keep in mind that the Idaho version is unique. We are not starting from scratch here and crafting victims’ rights from whole cloth. • The resolution that will be introduced in the 2018 Legislature was written by Idahoans for Idahoans. Our version of Marsy’s Law has received input from prosecutors, attorneys, law enforcement, victims’ advocates and the courts. • It’s a set of ideas victims in our state need and deserve. It’s also something that deserves support regardless of party. • The ability of Marsy’s Law to earn bipartisan support was on full display earlier this year in the Senate, where it passed 340. It later stalled in the House State Affairs Committee.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 13

Talking Points

• The reasons cited by critics include questioning the merit --or need --- to amend our constitution.

• I just want to take a moment to explain why these new provisions for victims’ rights should be enshrined in our constitution. • (Leaving this constitutional amendment argument open for you to address as you see fit).

CLOSING: • Finally, before I turn over the podium to others here this morning, I want to explain a little of my motivation for supporting Marsy’s Law. • (This is for you to improvise and talk about your background as a prosecutor/attorney; experience with victims and the courts; role as a legislator. I think you did an excellent job explaining this during the Press-Tribune interview).

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 14

Campaign Website Blog Post

Idaho

For One Crime Victim, The Struggle to Reclaim a Sense of Control Blog | Breeanne Howe | August 7, 2017 Natalie Marti’s experience as a victim of crime begins in February 2003 when she, her husband, and their baby daughter were driving home on an Idaho interstate. As her husband, Shawn, prepared to exit the freeway, a drunk driver traveling the wrong way at speeds estimated at 98 mph smashed into Marti’s vehicle. Marti’s husband and daughter, Sage, were killed instantly. Natalie suffered serious injuries and brain trauma. She spent the next three weeks in a coma before regaining consciousness and the strength to embark on her recovery. The police report on the crash left little doubt about who was at fault. Shawn had no time to avoid the collision, no room on the roadway to maneuver, Marti recounted from the investigation report. The conclusion was there was nothing he could have done to avoid a crash, she said. “We had no control over anything at that moment,” Marti said. In the months and years that followed, like so many other crime victims, Marti experienced and worked through a range of emotions: anguish, anger, grief, stress disorder. Over time, her mental and emotional recovery journey would take her down a path toward forgiveness and ultimately building the strength and will to speak publicly about the perils and consequences of drinking and driving. But to hear Marti tell her story, one central theme stands out: the control of her life that she had lost and her struggle to reclaim it. “I was 23 years old at the time this happened to me,” she said. “I had to move back in with my parents again, have them take care of me, drive me around. “After I got out of the hospital, I thought I’d go back home, sleep in the bed my husband and I shared, see my daughter’s room, her crib and the clothes she wore. The doctor said I couldn’t do that,” she said. “I learned quickly I couldn’t live the way I wanted to … to make my own choices. Losing my independence and control over my own life was such a frustrating experience.” Marti is a supporter of Marsy’s Law and its goal of strengthening the rights of crime victims in Idaho and ensuring their place in the constitution.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 15

Campaign Website Blog Post One of the motivating forces behind her support should come as no surprise. For Marti, Marsy’s Law is about giving victims more control, about having guaranteed rights to take part in the legal system. “Rights were taken away from me …. when this man crashed into me and my family 14 years ago,” she said. “I lost my right to raise my daughter and live the life I could have had with Shawn. But all of this was taken away, I lost control of any of this, because of someone else’s choice.” Under Marsy’s Law, which is being proposed as a constitutional amendment, victims would be afforded equal constitutional rights as the accused or convicted. In specific terms, Marsy’s Law would provide victims reasonable and timely notification of court proceedings from trial to parole, information about sentencing and probation, the right to confer with prosecutors and reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on their behalf. Lawmakers and voters in five states have already approved Marsy’s Law and enshrined victims’ rights in state constitutions. Advocates are currently working to pass similar constitutional amendments in Idaho and eight other states. Support in the Gem State continues to grow, with endorsements coming recently from the Idaho Sheriff’s Association and legislative leaders like Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke. A bill will be introduced in the 2018 Idaho Legislature, and if approved will be added to the ballot in November 2018. “The biggest reason for supporting Marsy’s Law for me is guaranteeing rights for victims,” she said. “It’s important for victims to feel and believe they have rights in the legal system. Being at the trial, being at sentencing or whatever step in the process you want. “I think it’s important because it gives a victim a sense of being in control again. When you’re a victim you feel like so much control has been taken away from you.” Natalie Marti lives in Meridian, is a hair stylist and operates a salon. She also teaches swimming to children during the summer. She’s written a book about her experience entitled, “Last Words” which she hopes to have published later this year. She is active on the public speaking circuit, sharing her experience as a victim and teaching about the potential harm and implications of drinking and driving. For more information about Natalie, visit her website at: https://www.nataliemarti.com

Share: !"#$%

GET INVOLVED NOW THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

Click here to help us pass Marsy's Law in your state.

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 16

Guest Opinion Rebuttal

Why Marsy’s Law is Right for Victims and Idaho

A month ago, an inmate at a Canyon County Jail cut a hole through the facility’s canvas wall, scaled a 10-foot fence topped with razor wire and fled. Police say the escapee then headed straight for the home of the woman he’s accused of strangling, punching and biting, in the process ignoring court imposed no-contact orders. Fortunately, Canyon County authorities apprehended the escapee before any interaction with the victim. County victim coordinators engaged Idaho’s notification network (VINE) to get a message to the victim minutes after the escape. To me, this case raises a profound and fundamental question: What more can we do to better protect crime victims who constantly live in fear of assailants, to strengthen their rights and enhance their voice in our justice system? For decades, Idaho has been a victims’ rights leader. But time and the personal experiences of victims have exposed shortcomings and identified areas to improve. Marsy’s Law for Idaho is committed to updating and enhancing victims’ rights, from adding more notification requirements to giving victims the right to confer with prosecutors. Ideas like those have earned the support of local lawmakers like Republican Senator Todd Lakey and GOP Rep. Brent Crane, and endorsements from Idaho prosecutors, sheriffs and police officers. In a Sept. 29 opinion, the Press-Tribune Editorial Board echoed reservations about Marsy’s Law cited by the criminal defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. First, critics contend Marsy’s Law would broaden how victims are defined, a step they speculate would increase victim numbers and burden our justice system. We’ve challenged these organizations to support those claims with facts. To date, they’ve responded with what-ifs and speculation. I encourage readers to examine the two-page Marsy’s Law for Idaho resolution that Sen. Lakey proposed in the 2017 Legislature and won approval 34-0 in the Senate. The definition of victim mirrors the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, so Idaho courts will have ample case law to help define a victim. The language also provides flexibility to avoid leaving out certain victims who might not be included under Idaho’s current statutes. THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 17

Guest Opinion Rebuttal

Essentially, the Marsy’s Law definition helps expand access to the justice system for those who truly are crime victims, while providing sideboards to prevent unnecessary burdens on the system. Let me be clear. Marsy’s Law is not trying to reinvent the wheels of our justice system. Our goal is simply to elevate the rights of victims. In addition, at least 30 states have implemented some form of constitutional victims’ rights, yet not a single state has identified any significant, negative side effects related to judicial efficiency. Consider the first-hand experience of Gary Paer, a judge with the Orange County Superior Court in California, the first state to adopt Marsy’s Law. He said: “The exercise by victims of these rights in my court did not undermine the fair or efficient administration of justice.” The editorial also tries to make an apples-to-apples comparison with Montana, whose voters overwhelmingly adopted Marsy’s Law last year. The editorial cites the costs and financial burdens implementation of Marsy’s Law is having on Montana’s justice system. The mistake in this comparison is that our neighbors to the east are starting their victims’ rights experiment from scratch. Here, Idahoans laid the foundation 22 years ago by passing the Victims’ Rights Amendment, then putting a notification network and other victim support infrastructure in place. It’s possible Marsy’s Law will need minimal financial support from government. But as Sen. Lakey explains, it’s a small price to pay to assist tomorrow’s victims of violent crimes. Ultimately, Marsy’s Law for Idaho is about improving the lives of a group of people, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in the swirl of our justice system. It’s about giving them more protection, a stronger voice and assurances they will be treated with fairness, respect and dignity. Jason Arrington, State Director of Marsy’s Law for Idaho Jason Arrington grew up in Oakley and currently lives in Nampa. He most recently served as Political Director for U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo’s 2016 re-election campaign.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 18

Guest Opinion Rebuttal Placement

https://www.idahopress.com/opinion/guest_opinions/why-marsy-s-law-is-right-for-victims-and-idaho/article_9bcc61eb-b11e-55fb-8b3e-4dacd75a690e.html

Why Marsy’s Law is right for victims and Idaho Jason Arrington Oct 6, 2017 Jason Arrington

A month ago, an inmate at the Canyon County jail cut a hole through the facility’s canvas wall, scaled a 10foot fence topped with razor wire and fled. Police say the escapee then headed straight for the home of the woman he’s accused of strangling, punching and biting, in the process ignoring court-imposed no-contact orders. Fortunately, Canyon County authorities apprehended the escapee before any interaction with the victim. County victim coordinators engaged Idaho’s notification network, VINE, to get a message to the victim minutes after the escape. To me, this case raises a profound and fundamental question: What more can we do to better protect crime victims who constantly live in fear of assailants, to strengthen their rights and enhance their voice in our justice system? For decades, Idaho has been a victims’ rights leader. But time and the personal experiences of victims have exposed shortcomings and identified areas to improve. Marsy’s Law for Idaho is committed to updating and enhancing victims’ rights, from adding more notification requirements to giving victims the right to confer with prosecutors. Ideas like those have earned the support of local lawmakers like Republican Sen. Todd Lakey and Republican Rep. Brent Crane, and endorsements from Idaho prosecutors, sheriffs and police officers. Jason Arrington

In a Sept. 29 editorial, the Idaho Press-Tribune editorial board echoed reservations about Marsy’s Law cited A month ago, an inmate at the Canyon County jail cut a hole through the facility’s canvas wall, scaled a 10by the criminal defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. foot fence topped with razor wire and fled. First, critics contend Marsy’s Law would broaden how victims are defined, a step they speculate would Police say the escapee then headed straight for the home of the woman he’s accused of strangling, increase victim numbers and burden our justice system. We’ve challenged these organizations to support punching and biting, in the process ignoring court-imposed no-contact orders. those claims with facts. To date, they’ve responded with what-ifs and speculation. Fortunately, Canyon County authorities apprehended the escapee before any interaction with the victim. County victim coordinators engaged Idaho’s notification network, VINE, to get a message to the victim minutes after the escape. To me, this case raises a profound and fundamental question: What more can we do to better protect crime victims who constantly live in fear of assailants, to strengthen their rights and enhance their voice in our justice system? For decades, Idaho has been a victims’ rights leader. But time and the personal experiences of victims have exposed shortcomings and identified areas to improve. Marsy’s Law for Idaho is committed to updating and enhancing victims’ rights, from adding more notification requirements to giving victims the right to confer with prosecutors. Ideas like those have earned the support of local lawmakers like Republican Sen. Todd Lakey and Republican Rep. Brent Crane, and endorsements from Idaho prosecutors, sheriffs and police officers. In a Sept. 29 editorial, the Idaho Press-Tribune editorial board echoed reservations about Marsy’s Law cited by the criminal defense lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union. First, critics contend Marsy’s Law would broaden how victims are defined, a step they speculate would increase victim numbers and burden our justice system. We’ve challenged these organizations to support those claims with facts. To date, they’ve responded with what-ifs and speculation.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 19

Guest Opinion Rebuttal Placement I encourage readers to examine the two-page Marsy’s Law for Idaho resolution that Sen. Lakey proposed in the 2017 Legislature and won approval, 34-0, in the Senate. The definition of victim mirrors the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act, so Idaho courts will have ample case law to help define a victim. The language also provides flexibility to avoid leaving out certain victims who might not be included under Idaho’s current statutes. Essentially, the Marsy’s Law definition helps expand access to the justice system for those who truly are crime victims, while providing sideboards to prevent unnecessary burdens on the system. Let me be clear. Marsy’s Law is not trying to reinvent the wheels of our justice system. Our goal is simply to elevate the rights of victims. In addition, at least 30 states have implemented some form of constitutional victims’ rights, yet not a single state has identified any significant, negative side effects related to judicial efficiency. Consider the first-hand experience of Gary Paer, a judge with the Orange County Superior Court in California, the first state to adopt Marsy’s Law. He said, “The exercise by victims of these rights in my court did not undermine the fair or efficient administration of justice.” The editorial also tries to make an apples-to-apples comparison with Montana, whose voters overwhelmingly adopted Marsy’s Law last year. The editorial cites the costs and financial burdens that implementation of Marsy’s Law is having on Montana’s justice system. The mistake in this comparison is that our neighbors to the east are starting their victims’ rights experiment from scratch. Here, Idahoans laid the foundation 22 years ago by passing the Victims’ Rights Amendment, then putting a notification network and other victim support infrastructure in place. It’s possible Marsy’s Law will need minimal financial support from government. But as Sen. Lakey explains, it’s a small price to pay to assist tomorrow’s victims of violent crimes. Ultimately, Marsy’s Law for Idaho is about improving the lives of a group of people, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in the swirl of our justice system. It’s about giving them more protection, a stronger voice and assurances they will be treated with fairness, respect and dignity.

Jason Arrington is state director of Marsy’s Law for Idaho. Arrington grew up in Oakley and currently lives in Nampa.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 20

News Clips

https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/2cscoop/inside-marsy-s-law-advocates-opponents-diﬀer-on-how-to/article_b054cf65-4535-5ae2-965f-c770867b763b.html

INSIDE MARSY'S LAW: Advocates, opponents diﬀer on how to strengthen Idaho's victims' rights laws By EMILY LOWE elowe@idahopress.com Sep 23, 2017

Sylvia Flores lost her daughter Angie Leon who was murdered by her estranged husband in 2003. Flores is a propent for Marsy's Law.

Buy Now

Chris Bronson/IPT

OTHER STATES WITH MARSY'S LAW Each state that has used Marsy’s Law National as a

NAMPA — Angie Leon thought she would have a chance to get away from her abusive, estranged husband while he was completing a court-ordered rider program for nine months in Cottonwood. She was wrong.

steppingstone has created its own language that ﬁts

On May 19, 2003, Abel Leon Ramirez, Angie Leon’s husband, shot and

that state best. California,

killed her.

Illinois, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have all passed their own legislation with the help of Marsy's Law National. Residents overwhelmingly passed the new legislation for Marsy's Law in Montana in November 2016. In December 2016, the Great Falls Tribune reported that the law was "already impacting the

Leon, who was three weeks shy of turning 22, thought she would be able to move away from the man she grew to fear. She wanted to attend Idaho State University to become a nurse or a pharmacist — she hadn’t decided which yet. Sylvia Flores, Angie Leon’s mother, said her daughter was only notiﬁed after a hearing that Angie’s estranged husband was going to be released from jail within the hour. Within three weeks, he had found where Angie and their three children lived. Sylvia Flores, a proponent for Marsy’s Law for Idaho, said if it were required for her daughter to be notiﬁed sooner, she thinks her daughter might still be alive today.

criminal justice system

A notiﬁcation system for victims is already in place. But State Sen.

with increased workloads

Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, – and other advocates for Marsy’s Law for Idaho – aims to pass a resolution during the 2018 legislative session

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 21

News Clips and ﬁnancial burdens on

that would update Idaho’s victims’ rights via constitutional

time-crunched and cash-

amendment, giving victims “reasonable and timely” notiﬁcation of a

strapped agencies."

defendant’s hearing or release.

Gallatin County Attorney

But not everyone agrees with how to go about those changes.

Marty Lambert said in the Great Falls Tribune report that he was planning to ask for a new victim witness advocate and an administrative assistant to help with the additional workload. The Great Falls Tribune reported the positions would cost just shy of $100,000. City Attorney Greg Sullivan

Kathy Griesmyer, policy director at the ACLU of Idaho, and other opponents such as Ian Thomson, vice president of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, say the proposed resolution would burden judges and prolong trials by expanding the deﬁnition of who a victim is and not adequately funding how to implement the changes in the courts. “Without new funding, it’s a feel-good measure if Legislature doesn’t come up with the money,” Thomson said. WHAT'S IN PLACE NOW

said additional staﬀ and

Victims’ rights are outlined by the 1994 Idaho Victims Rights

technology upgrades

amendment. Marsy’s Law for Idaho is the blueprint that’s being used

needed to keep up with

to update that existing language.

the workload will cost the city about $75,000

“The language we have in the Constitution now was good language

annually.

20-plus years ago when it was adopted,” Lakey said. “But we need to

Great Falls Tribune also

country and particularly in the federal system.”

reported that Montana's broadened deﬁnition of who victims are creates an even greater caseload for victim advocates. Which poses the potential for some victims to "fall through the cracks."

update it to become current with standards that exist across the

During the 2017 legislative session, the Idaho Senate passed the joint resolution for Marsy’s Law for Idaho, 34-0, but it stalled before the Idaho House of Representatives, who, Lakey said, did not receive enough time and education on the measure. Lakey is proposing a similar measure during the 2018 legislative session, where proponents are focused on educating House members for the upcoming session. For the proposed resolution to become an amendment to the Idaho Constitution, it must ﬁrst pass the Idaho Senate and the Idaho House of Representatives in a two-thirds vote. It would then be included on

MARSY NICHOLAS

the November 2018 ballot for voters to decide its outcome, Lakey

Marsy's Law is named

said.

after Marsalee (Marsy) Nicholas who was stalked and killed by her exboyfriend in 1983 in California. Only one week after she was killed, her

Lakey said the constitutional amendment is important because, to him, victims are impacted most severely in the court system. “They need to have the strength of the Constitution behind their right to be heard,” Lakey said.

brother, Henry Nicholas,

Thomson said he agrees victims should be given rights. Instead of a

and her mother, Marcella

constitutional amendment, though, he said laws should be written to

provide more funding for victims’ advocacy programs. A constitutional Leach, were confronted THE VELTEX BUILDING,by420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702 STRATEGIES360.COM the accused murderer in

amendment makes the law harder to change if it does not work the

the grocery store. They

way it is intended to, he said.

had no idea he was out on bail. Henry Nicholas became the key backer

ATTEMPTING TO BRING CHANGE TO OLD LEGISLATION Carlie Foster, lobbyist for Marsy’s Law for Idaho, said there is no

p 22

city about $75,000

“The language we have in the Constitution now was good language

annually.

20-plus years ago when it was adopted,” Lakey said. “But we need to

Great Falls Tribune also

country and particularly in the federal system.”

reported that Montana's broadened deﬁnition of who victims are creates an even greater caseload for victim advocates. Which poses the potential for

News Clips

some victims to "fall through the cracks."

update it to become current with standards that exist across the

MARSY NICHOLAS

the November 2018 ballot for voters to decide its outcome, Lakey

Marsy's Law is named

said.

after Marsalee (Marsy) Nicholas who was stalked and killed by her exboyfriend in 1983 in California. Only one week after she was killed, her

brother, Henry Nicholas,

Thomson said he agrees victims should be given rights. Instead of a

and her mother, Marcella

constitutional amendment, though, he said laws should be written to

Leach, were confronted by

provide more funding for victims’ advocacy programs. A constitutional

the accused murderer in

amendment makes the law harder to change if it does not work the

the grocery store. They

way it is intended to, he said.

had no idea he was out on bail. Henry Nicholas became the key backer and main proponent to the law which passed in California in 2008. The law allowed victims to have proper notiﬁcation when a defendant is being released, as well as other

ATTEMPTING TO BRING CHANGE TO OLD LEGISLATION Carlie Foster, lobbyist for Marsy’s Law for Idaho, said there is no mechanism to enforce the rights victims currently have, but Marsy’s Law would give victims the ability to have standing to assert those rights. Lakey, who started his career as a prosecuting attorney, said he has seen how these issues victims face “play out ﬁrst hand.”

rights. Now Henry Nicholas said he is backing

With the current model, it’s legal to give the victim only a few minutes’

Marsy's Law National so

notice for a hearing. The proposed resolution would require they be

other states can better

given “reasonable and timely” notice prior to a hearing; notiﬁcation of

outline the rights of

escape, release or probation and notice of reading a pre-sentence

victims.

report, Lakey said. For example, if the victim received only an hour’s notice about a hearing, the hearing could be continued to another day. The resolution for Marsy’s Law for Idaho does not deﬁne what

SUPPORT FOR MARSY'S LAW Marsy's Law has gained backing by several

reasonable and timely notice is — something Lakey said will be up to the discretion of the courts to determine. But Lakey said that’s better than the current wording that states victims will simply be given prior notice.

organizations, including

Victims would also be assured the right to confer with their

the Idaho Sheriﬀ's

prosecutor, Lakey said. The wording used in the current legislation is

Association and the Idaho

“communicate,” which Lakey said is one-sided. Conferring implies

Fraternal Order of Police.

there is some back-and-forth. While Lakey said many prosecutors

Canyon County Sheriﬀ Kieran Donahue, who is

already do this, he wants victims to be guaranteed this right. Ultimately though, he said, the prosecutors would make those

decisions. THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702 the vice president of the

STRATEGIES360.COM

Idaho Sheriﬀ's Association,

Lakey added that the new legislation would also give victims notice of

said he gives his full

hearings and opportunities to submit letters and speak at

support to Marsy's Law for

proceedings they aren’t currently aﬀorded. Some of the new hearings

Idaho.

they could speak at would include post-conviction, pardons, change in

p 23

notice about a hearing, the hearing could be continued to another day. The resolution for Marsy’s Law for Idaho does not deﬁne what

SUPPORT FOR MARSY'S LAW Marsy's Law has gained backing by several

organizations, including

Victims would also be assured the right to confer with their

the Idaho Sheriﬀ's

prosecutor, Lakey said. The wording used in the current legislation is

Association and the Idaho

“communicate,” which Lakey said is one-sided. Conferring implies

Fraternal Order of Police.

there is some back-and-forth. While Lakey said many prosecutors

News Clips

Canyon County Sheriﬀ Kieran Donahue, who is the vice president of the

already do this, he wants victims to be guaranteed this right. Ultimately though, he said, the prosecutors would make those decisions.

Idaho Sheriﬀ's Association,

Lakey added that the new legislation would also give victims notice of

said he gives his full

hearings and opportunities to submit letters and speak at

support to Marsy's Law for

proceedings they aren’t currently aﬀorded. Some of the new hearings

Idaho.

they could speak at would include post-conviction, pardons, change in

"As law enforcement we give an oath to protect those who can't protect themselves," he said. "It's the right thing to do."

probation and parole discharge. For example, if a person who was found guilty of a crime were allowed probation, the victim could submit a letter or speak during the proceeding to talk about how that would impact him or her. But Thomson, the public defender who opposes the legislation, said Marsy’s Law is “not trying to get equal rights, but greater rights for the victim.” For instance, he said, it appears that if the new legislation is passed, a victim would be able to appear and be heard at appeals or postconvictions of the defendant, a situation not afforded to defendants. Perhaps the most important proposed alteration to the current legislation is the victim’s ability to relay what’s happened. “I’ve been in court and seen victims just shaking,” Lakey said. “They can’t communicate because they’re so close to the person that victimized them.” If a victim does not feel comfortable speaking at hearings, Lakey said, the new measure would allow the prosecutor or another representative to speak on behalf of the victim. Angie Leon’s three children and her mother, Sylvia Flores, were all witnesses to Angie Leon’s death. Two of her three children, 4 and 5 years old at the time, were set to testify against their father and were being counseled on the process, Flores said. Flores said the children all reacted to their mother’s death differently, with night terrors, constant crying, anger and counseling. The only thing that saved the children from testifying was their father, Ramirez, who entered an Alford plea. An Alford plea means the suspect states they are innocent, but acknowledges there may be enough evidence to find the suspect guilty during a jury trial. As a result, the children did not have to testify, and the death penalty he may have faced turned into life in prison without parole.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 24

News Clips If the measure succeeds, victims will still have to testify if called to be a witness, but Sylvia Flores or her grandchildren could choose to have others speak on their behalf or read letters during hearings about how they’ve been impacted. This is already allowed in some courts depending on the judge, Lakey said, but Marsy’s Law would assure that option. Marsy’s Law would protect victims like her daughter, Flores said, but it would also protect Leon’s children, whom Flores has since adopted. For victims who do not want to face the defendant, Flores said having someone else to speak before the court “would really help victims heal.” “Everyone should be heard,” she said. “Not just the oﬀender.” THOSE IN OPPOSITION Thomson said when the resolution was discussed last legislative session, he listened to victims talk about two main issues. One was that victims were disappointed with the outcome of the trial. The other concern victims had was how they were treated in the criminal justice system. Some felt they could not speak the way they wanted to, or that they were not given enough notice prior to a hearing, he said. “I don’t think these complaints aren’t being addressed by what we already have,” Thomson said. “It’s just poor execution when given limited resources.” Thomson believes the proposed resolution is a “solution running around looking for a problem.” Thomson said he does not want the debate to be construed as “either you’re with us or against us.” He said he thinks victims should have rights and that their concerns should be addressed. However, he does not believe Marsy’s Law for Idaho will address those concerns. Michael Bartlett, a criminal defense attorney, said that Marsy’s Law would give victims the ability to appear before any court hearing. Bartlett said, to his understanding, that could mean the victim could speak during hearings about what the alleged suspect has done, without that person having been found guilty. Bartlett said the deﬁnition of a crime victim in the resolution would greatly expand the meaning of a victim. Under the proposed resolution, a “’crime victim’ shall include any person or entity directly and proximately harmed by the commission.” Bartlett said could meanSTREET, multipleSUITE people205 and |agencies could 83702 THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420that WEST MAIN BOISE, IDAHO claim to be a victim against one person. Bartlett explained that if

someone gets in a ﬁght and breaks someone’s leg, that person is unarguably the victim. By expanding the deﬁnition of a victim, the business the victim works for could potentially testify as a victim because they are not making as much money while their employee,

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 25

Thomson said he does not want the debate to be construed as “either you’re with us or against us.” He said he thinks victims should have rights and that their concerns should be addressed. However, he does not believe Marsy’s Law for Idaho will address those concerns. Michael Bartlett, a criminal defense attorney, said that Marsy’s Law would give victims the ability to appear before any court hearing. Bartlett said, to his understanding, that could mean the victim could speak during hearings about what the alleged suspect has done,

News Clips

without that person having been found guilty. Bartlett said the definition of a crime victim in the resolution would greatly expand the meaning of a victim. Under the proposed resolution, a “’crime victim’ shall include any person or entity directly and proximately harmed by the commission.” Bartlett said that could mean multiple people and agencies could claim to be a victim against one person. Bartlett explained that if someone gets in a fight and breaks someone’s leg, that person is unarguably the victim. By expanding the definition of a victim, the business the victim works for could potentially testify as a victim because they are not making as much money while their employee, the victim, is out on injury. The proposed resolution also states victims will get “full and timely restitution from the person committing the offense for economic losses.” Bartlett said that goes “beyond the scale of criminal law” because economic restitution is typically a civil matter. This would mesh civil court and criminal court into one, he said, which ultimately would create longer trials. Griesmyer with the ACLU, who has the same concerns with the proposed changes for the definition of a crime victim, said the change also means a large corporation like Wal-Mart could speak before the court as a victim of an economic crime. Being a large corporation, Wal-Mart already has its own legal council, but Griesmyer wonders if Wal-Mart would be afforded the same resources of victims who cannot afford legal council. She said the issue then becomes diverting the resources to actual human victims who really need it. Griesmyer said another problem with the proposed resolution is the pressure it would put on judges. The process of a criminal trial would be put on hold when victims or the defendant claim their constitutional rights are violated during the hearings because the judge would have to decide whose rights to protect over the other. This would be decided independently of the actual trial, she said, which diminishes the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. Griesmyer added that if a judge rules with the victim’s rights, it could jeopardize the case because the defendant could, for example, challenge the validity of the sentence, which would create more problems for victims. Lakey said the proposed resolution states it is not intended to supersede a defendant’s federal rights. He said the defendant’s rights — such as right to a speedy trial or right to face the accuser — would not be overlooked in favor of the rights of the victim. “Amendments aren’t magic,” Thomson said. If Marsy’s Law for Idaho does pass, it will take program funding, judges and prosecutors to transform those changes, he said.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

OPTIMISTIC FOR VICTIMS RIGHTS Opponents of the change all mentioned that there is no ﬁscal note attached to the legislation. Bartlett said the side that favors Marsy’s Law for Idaho has not considered how signiﬁcant the costs could be.

p 26

Griesmyer said another problem with the proposed resolution is the pressure it would put on judges. The process of a criminal trial would be put on hold when victims or the defendant claim their constitutional rights are violated during the hearings because the judge would have to decide whose rights to protect over the other. This would be decided independently of the actual trial, she said, which diminishes the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

News Clips

Griesmyer added that if a judge rules with the victim’s rights, it could jeopardize the case because the defendant could, for example, challenge the validity of the sentence, which would create more problems for victims. Lakey said the proposed resolution states it is not intended to supersede a defendant’s federal rights. He said the defendant’s rights — such as right to a speedy trial or right to face the accuser — would not be overlooked in favor of the rights of the victim. “Amendments aren’t magic,” Thomson said. If Marsy’s Law for Idaho does pass, it will take program funding, judges and prosecutors to transform those changes, he said. OPTIMISTIC FOR VICTIMS RIGHTS Opponents of the change all mentioned that there is no fiscal note attached to the legislation. Bartlett said the side that favors Marsy’s Law for Idaho has not considered how significant the costs could be. Bartlett said it would require more victim witness coordinators, prosecutors and public defenders. Lakey said cost should not be a concern when it comes to protecting victims. Lakey said a third party group has been asked to do a fiscal analysis of the resolution, but the findings have not been shared yet. “Frankly, there’s going to be some cost, we don’t know what it’s going to be with additional notification,” Lakey said. “Maybe we’ll have more victims who say they understand now and want to speak to the court. “For me, the initial cost is well worth it in protecting rights of victims. And making sure they have that same level of protection as the criminal defendant.”

Emily Lowe is the public safety reporter. Follow @EmLoweJourno on Twitter.

EmilyLoweIPT

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 27

�

News Clips Idaho rape survivor speaks out on support for crime victims

Lauren Busdon, 19, spoke to the media on Sept. 25, 2017, at the Statehouse in support of Marsy's Law for Idaho. Busdon shared details around how she was treated during her rapist's prosecution, advocating for change. Provided by Strategies 360

�

STATE POLITICS

New law would expand victims’ rights. Can Idaho deliver what it promises? Idaho rape survivor BY RUTH BROWN speaks out on support for crime victims rbrown@idahostatesman.com Lauren Busdon, 19, spoke to the media on Sept. 25, 2017, at the Statehouse in support of Marsy's Law for Idaho. Busdon October 18, 2017 10:05 PM shared details around how she was treated during her rapist's prosecution, advocating for change. Provided by Updated October 19, 2017 04:24 PM Strategies 360

Lauren Busdon was 14 when she was raped.

STATE POLITICS

Throughout court appearances and parole hearings, she said, she felt as if she had no one advocating for her. She found it hard to track upcoming hearings on her own.

New law would expand victims’ rights. Can Idaho deliver what it promises? Before her rapist was sentenced, she said, he “not only violated our no-contact order, but he raped another 14-year-old girl. These actions came with little repercussions.” Now she told her story Sept. 25 at the Idaho Capitol, one BY RUTH19, BROWN rbrown@idahostatesman.com launch a lobbying effort to change the Idaho Constitution.

of several speakers helping to

October 18, 2017 10:05 PM Updated October 19, 2017 04:24 PM

Today's top news by email Lauren Busdon was 14 when she was raped. The local news you need to start your day

Throughout court appearances and parole hearings, she said, she felt as if she had no one advocating for her. She found it hard to track upcoming Enter Email Address hearings on her own. Before her rapist was sentenced, she said, he “not only violated our no-contact order, but he SIGN UP raped another 14-year-old girl. These actions came with little repercussions.” Now 19, she told her story Sept. 25 at the Idaho Capitol, one of several speakers helping to launch a lobbying effort to change the Idaho Constitution. For a second time, lawmakers in January will propose updating and expanding a set of rights for crime victims already outlined in the state’s constitution. Today's top news by emailAdvocates of the measure argue that it’s a morally necessary step to aid victims who are overlooked in Idaho courtrooms. But The local news you need to start your day Enter Email Address SIGN UP

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702 STRATEGIES360.COM For a second time, lawmakers in January will propose updating and expanding a set of rights for crime victims already outlined in the state’s constitution. Advocates of the measure argue p 28 that it’s a morally necessary step to aid victims who are overlooked in Idaho courtrooms. But

News Clips as their efforts begin, it’s not clear what adopting the new standards would cost the state, counties and cities, or whether they are capable of carrying them out. “Through nearly all of the court proceedings in the last five years, I have been treated lesser than my rapist,” Busdon said. “I support strengthening victims’ rights in Idaho’s Constitution to ensure others like me do not have to deal with a similar experience, in what has to be the most difficult time in their life.” Sen. Todd Lakey and Rep. Brent Crane, both Republicans from Nampa, plan to introduce Marsy’s Law for Idaho during the 2018 session. As a constitutional amendment, Idahoans must also approve the measure in a statewide vote for it to take effect. Marsy’s Law is a national campaign named after Marsy Nicholas, who was killed by her exboyfriend in 1983. One week after she was killed, her murderer was released on bail without her family’s knowledge and confronted her mother and brother. First passed in California in 2008, the constitutional amendment has been adopted in a couple of additional states. But it has sometimes hit legal trouble and failed to make it through the Idaho Legislature in 2017. The changes to Idaho’s crime victim rights, passed in 1994, would include altering a provision that victims have the right to communicate with prosecutors, changing “communicate” to “confer.” Idaho’s Constitution currently defines a victim as “an individual who suffers direct or threatened” physical, financial or emotional harm. Marsy’s Law would change that to “any person or entity directly and proximately harmed.” Those who work closely with victims in Idaho’s current system say it indeed has problems, including issues just keeping up with heavy caseloads. Organizations such as the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association, the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association and the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police have signed on to support the amendment. Lori Stewart, victim witness coordinator for the Twin Falls County Sheriff ’s Office, said bringing victims’ rights to the forefront makes her role easier. She handles about 700 cases a year, including ones that don’t reach the point of criminal charges. “Victims are thrown into a process by no action of their own,” Stewart said. “The criminal justice system is hard to wade through.” Aleshea Boals performs the same role for the Canyon County Sheriff ’s Office. She handles about 500 cases a year. Particularly in probation and post-conviction hearings, she said, victims are not always given the opportunities they deserve to participate. “Idaho has absolutely been a leader in crime victims’ rights,” she said. “This is just another step.”

p 29

Lori Stewart, victim witness coordinator for the Twin Falls County Sheriff ’s Ofﬁce, said bringing victims’ rights to the forefront makes her role easier. She handles about 700 cases a year, including ones that don’t reach the point of criminal charges. “Victims are thrown into a process by no action of their own,” Stewart said. “The criminal justice system is hard to wade through.” Aleshea Boals performs the same role for the Canyon County Sheriff ’s Ofﬁce. She handles about 500 cases a year. Particularly in probation and post-conviction hearings, she said, victims are not always given the opportunities they deserve to participate.

News Clips

“Idaho has absolutely been a leader in crime victims’ rights,” she said. “This is just another step.”

What are the concerns? The Idaho Coalition of Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence opposed Marsy’s Law last year and will again oppose it this year, said executive director Kelly Miller. The biggest reason is its definition of a “victim,” especially when it comes to victims of sexual assault. Both Idaho’s current system and Marsy’s Law establish rights only for victims whose cases reach the point of criminal charges. State and federal data consistently show that the actual number of victims of reported crimes is far greater. Between 2009 and 2015, for example, only 24 percent of reported sex crimes on average resulted in an arrest in Idaho, according to a report from Idaho State Police and the Idaho Statistical Analysis Center. In that same time frame, only 49 percent of reported violent offenses resulted in an arrest. Miller provides services to many of those victims whose cases don’t necessarily reach court. She fears Marsy’s Law will have an unintended side effect, taking limited resources away from that wider pool of victims. She also questions why an “entity” qualifies as a victim. “Are we talking about large corporations that could be taking up time and resources?” she asked. Kathy Griesmyer, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, said she fears Marsy’s Law could potentially backlog Idaho’s courts, overload judges and and force resentencing hearings or new trials in closed cases. The latter, she said, actually might harm victims forced to retell their stories. She’s also concerned the law would give victims more rights than those criminal defendants are entitled to through the Sixth Amendment, causing a new imbalance. “We already know that our criminal justice system is overworked,” Griesmyer said. Carlie Foster, a lobbyist promoting Marsy’s Law for Idaho, said the proposed definition of a victim is the same as that used by the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act and in other states. The federal law does not use the word “entity,” however. “In the other states that have enacted similar language, there has not been any evidence that the definition has created any additional meaningful burden on the court system,” she said. “Opponents try to claim that it will be an issue, but have not brought forth any data that supports their presumptions.” The proposed law, she said, is intended to give victims the same rights as defendants. “The focus is on all victims, and not singling out one group of victims over another,” she said.

The cost question As a constitutional amendment, Marsy’s Law must ﬁrst clear both Idaho’s House and Senate with two-thirds or more of the vote. It would then be put before Idaho voters, needing a simple majority of votes to pass. other states that Law in their legislatures sawIDAHO issues on the ballot — STRATEGIES360.COM THESeveral VELTEX BUILDING, 420passed WESTMarsy’s MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, 83702 largely over questions of its cost.

In North Dakota in 2016, for example, there were complaints about the length and ambiguity of the ballot measure, according to the Grand Forks Herald. The North Dakota Ofﬁce of Management and Budget estimated the law would cost millions of dollars to

p 30

“Opponents try to claim that it will be an issue, but have not brought forth any data that supports their presumptions.” The proposed law, she said, is intended to give victims the same rights as defendants. “The focus is on all victims, and not singling out one group of victims over another,” she said.

The cost question

News Clips

As a constitutional amendment, Marsy’s Law must first clear both Idaho’s House and Senate with two-thirds or more of the vote. It would then be put before Idaho voters, needing a simple majority of votes to pass. Several other states that passed Marsy’s Law in their legislatures saw issues on the ballot — largely over questions of its cost. In North Dakota in 2016, for example, there were complaints about the length and ambiguity of the ballot measure, according to the Grand Forks Herald. The North Dakota Office of Management and Budget estimated the law would cost millions of dollars to implement, the Herald reported, but supporters of the law considered the costs inflated. Last week, a panel of lawmakers heard from a police official who said the law had a minimal impact on operations. A county prosecutor described higher workloads, concern about notifying victims in a timely manner, and the potential for situations where a case could be dismissed because a victim refuses to be identified to a defendant, according to The Associated Press. The Montana Supreme Court put that state’s version of Marsy’s Law on hold earlier this year while an ACLU lawsuit proceeds. The ACLU argues Marsy’s Law was unconstitutional when it passed last fall because it did not adequately inform voters about its costs, according to the Missoulian. Montana lawmakers placed new restrictions on it this spring, including limits on what kinds of cases it applies to. The public push by Idaho lawmakers and lobbyists for Marsy’s Law started weeks ago, but the proposal does not yet have a formal cost estimate. One is underway and will reportedly take into account the financial effects on Idaho counties and cities, beyond just the state budgets the Legislature deals with. Most law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and victimwitness coordinators are paid through city and county funding. The version of Marsy’s Law that Lakey introduced in 2017 included a note asking for $205,000 from the general fund for costs related to holding a statewide vote on the measure. It was relatively vague around how it would impact local agencies, noting “some

increased costs” tied to notifying victims of court proceedings, and more time possibly needed for hearings during which victims want to speak or that are pushed back due to improper notice. That measure passed the Idaho Senate but was voted down 10-5 in the House State Affairs Committee after a three-day hearing. Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, said on Facebook the bill “was sold as an amendment to ‘help the victims’ but there were major issues with the language and the unintended consequences,” according to The Spokesman-Review.

Can existing tool make Marsy’s Law work? Key to the Marsy’s Law pitch is the Victim Identiﬁcation and Notiﬁcation Everyday network, which Idaho already uses at several levels to notify victims of changes in their cases. The network, commonly called VINE, can include things like the dates of upcoming court appearances and when an offender will be released from incarceration. The VINE system interfaces with all 36 jails in the state and the Idaho Supreme Court. It costs about $500,000 a year, paid for by a $15 fee assessed when a person is convicted and sentenced for a crime, said Vaughn Killeen, executive director of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association.

THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

It does not, however, connect to Idaho’s Commission of Pardons and Parole. That ofﬁce has a responsibility to notify victims of upcoming parole hearings, when decisions are made and when an inmate’s release date is set, said Executive Director Sandy Jones. Victims also must be told if an inmate escapes, changes location or dies.

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 31

improper notice. That measure passed the Idaho Senate but was voted down 10-5 in the House State Affairs Committee after a three-day hearing. Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, said on Facebook the bill “was sold as an amendment to ‘help the victims’ but there were major issues with the language and the unintended consequences,” according to The Spokesman-Review.

News Clips

The VINE system interfaces with all 36 jails in the state and the Idaho Supreme Court. It costs about $500,000 a year, paid for by a $15 fee assessed when a person is convicted and sentenced for a crime, said Vaughn Killeen, executive director of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association. It does not, however, connect to Idaho’s Commission of Pardons and Parole. That office has a responsibility to notify victims of upcoming parole hearings, when decisions are made and when an inmate’s release date is set, said Executive Director Sandy Jones. Victims also must be told if an inmate escapes, changes location or dies. The commission does that manually because it has no automated system for victims to sign up for such notices, and VINE includes prison release dates but is not set up for parole hearing dates. For the manual notifications, the parole commission relies on county prosecutors to pass along updated victim contact information; that approach isn’t “foolproof,” Jones said. “The concern is what happens if we miss them?” Jones said. “You can’t un-parole someone, and then if we find out there was someone who wanted to be involved, what do we do?” Foster maintains VINE would be an adequate tool to address Jones’ concerns. And if a victim fails to give the state their contact information, she said, agencies like the parole commission wouldn’t be held accountable. Marsy’s Law would only require reasonable and timely notification, she said. The 2017 legislation says VINE could handle “some of the additional notices.” Jones also worries about caseload. Her commission has one victim coordinator, paid $39,436 annually plus benefits, who is responsible for all notifications, but is also responsible for sitting with and supporting victims during parole hearings. The coordinator gets help from a technical records specialist, a position that was just funded last year and is paid $28,412 annually, plus benefits. Over five years from 2013-17, about 455 violent offenders with victims who needed the coordinator’s attention were eligible for parole each year. That includes inmates serving time for murder, manslaughter, and sex and assault crimes. If Marsy’s Law expands the definition of “victim” to include financial and property crimes, Jones said, the coordinator would have had to take on another 322 offenders’ cases a year. She would need to ask the Legislature to fund at least one more coordinator. The Idaho Department of Correction also has one full-time victim coordinator, paid roughly $48,200 annually, plus benefits. “IDOC is reviewing the legislation,” said agency Director Henry Atencio. “While we support victims and their right to be heard throughout the criminal justice system, we need to ensure that our department will have the necessary resources to comply with the proposed changes.” THE VELTEX BUILDING, 420 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 | BOISE, IDAHO 83702

STRATEGIES360.COM

p 32

News Clips The ACLU’s Griesmyer argues Idaho already can’t meet its obligations for judicial rights, specifically when it comes to public defense. The ACLU successfully sued the state in 2015 over inadequate public defense, a problem that still has not been fully remedied due to public defenders’ caseloads and a lack of funding for their offices. “Victims’ rights and an adequately funded public defense system are two very different things,” Foster said in response. “It’s also critical to understand that Marsy’s Law has no impact whatsoever on the long-held rights of defendants. Instead, Marsy’s Law for Idaho is about giving victims what they deserve, more notification of important events in the justice system and a stronger voice. “Is it fair for victims to continue to be left on the legal system’s sidelines just because the state and organizations are trying to also fix the public defense system? We don’t think so.”

Ruth Brown: 208-377-6207, @RuthBrownNews $ COMMENTS %