Katie Meyer reports for WITF that nearly 3/4 of Pennsylvania voters approved that state's version of Marsy's Law, granting constitutional rights to crime victims. Incredibly, though, the Secretary of the Commonwealth was enjoined by a Commonwealth Court judge "from tabulating and certifying the votes in the November 2019 General Election relating to [this] ballot question ... until final disposition of the Petition for Review, including appeals." This preliminary injunction order was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a 4-3 vote.
The challenge is based on the single-subject rule. Apparently Pennsylvania has a particularly severe version of the rule. Even so, the remedy of enjoining the Secretary from certifying the vote sounds pretty weird to me. Why not certify the vote and then enjoin enforcement? It sounds pretty weird to the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, too.
The rights granted to victims in this measure are not really earth-shaking, despite the hand-wringing from the ACLU. Defendants have a right not to speak to the police. Is it really so horrible if victims have a right not to speak to defense lawyers? Are defense lawyers prevented from doing their jobs by a requirement to treat victims with dignity and respect? The Commonwealth Court judge seems to think so.
The same provisions have been in effect in California for eleven years. Defense lawyers can still do their jobs here.
On the merits, is Penn. Supreme really going to thumb its nose at three-quarters of the voters? Stay tuned.
Leave a comment