The state Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday in favor of including basic rights for crime victims in New Hampshire’s Constitution, but only after considering several amendments that resulted in hours of robust debate.
The final vote was 20-3 in favor of sending Marsy’s Law, also known as CACR 22, on to the House for further consideration.
“I appreciate all the work that has gone into this,” said Sen. Dan Feltes, a Concord Democrat, who voted in favor. “It isn’t perfect but the people in this chamber went a long way to making it New Hampshire.”
Since Marsy’s Law was introduced in mid-January, some lawmakers and members of the public have raised questions about the proposed constitutional amendment, which was based on a national model first passed in California. Henry Nicholas, a California tech billionaire, started Marsy’s Law for All in memory of his late sister, Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Marsy’s Law was first passed in the family’s home state of California in 2008, and it laid the groundwork for other states to follow suit, including New Hampshire.
The New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence recruited the national organization last year as apart of its long-term goal to enumerate crime victims’ rights in the state Constitution. The nonprofit organization said in a statement Thursday night that it looks forward to continued conversations with lawmakers about the need for a constitutional amendment.
“We are grateful to the New Hampshire Senate for passing CACR 22 with broad bipartisan support today. The Senate sent a clear message to victims that they deserve a meaningful voice in the courtroom and equal rights under the law,” said Amanda Grady Sexton, the state director of Marsy’s Law for New Hampshire and the coalition’s director of public affairs.
Thursday’s Senate debate included consideration of an amendment recommended for passage Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as five floor amendments – one of which was taken off the table before a vote.
Senators were swift in backing the committee amendment in a 21-1 vote, with Sen. Bob Giuda, R-Warren, the only lawmaker in opposition. The modified Marsy’s Law does not include the directive that the courts enforce victims’ rights “in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused.” It also clarifies that victims must request specific rights as part of the opt-in system, and that they will not just be provided automatically. Further, it narrows the times at which a victim may request to be heard in court and removes the right of the victim to refuse pretrial discovery requests from the defendant.
New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald submitted the changes to the Senate Judiciary Committee in an effort to address concerns raised by the opposition. MacDonald, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, county attorneys and members of the state’s four larges law enforcement associations were among the first to endorse Marsy’s Law.
Sen. Martha Hennessey, a Hanover Democrat, took those changes one step further by proposing that victims should not just have the right “to refuse an interview or deposition made by the accused,” but that they should have a right to refuse if that request is “unnecessary.” Hennessey’s amendment was backed by Feltes and others who argued that the change codifies existing law and, therefore, limits any ambiguity or uncertainty in interpretation.
The Senate ultimately voted, 14-9, in favor of adding the word “unnecessary” to the phrase, but not before it was met with strong opposition from the bill’s leading sponsors.
“Who here is going to determine what is ‘unnecessary?’ ” asked Sen. Sharon Carson, a Londonderry Republican.
She continued by speaking to Senate President Chuck Morse: “Mr. President, I’m just surprised after what we just passed, a very strong statement for victims’ rights, and now we’re trying to water it down.”
More significant attempts were made by Giuda to gut Marsy’s Law. However, the majority of senators shot down the proposals.
One of the amendments Giuda brought forward was previously considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee and never made it to a vote there. The amendment, drafted by retired New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Carol Ann Conboy and University of New Hampshire Law professor Buzz Scherr, took a minimalist approach and does not fully spell out the rights afforded to victims.
While Marsy’s Law has received strong bipartisan support, opponents of the bill – including the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, legal scholars and defense attorneys – have expressed concern about the perceived impact a constitutional amendment could have on a defendant’s due process rights.
Because there are already strong victims’ rights laws on the books, Giuda argued a constitutional amendment should be “unspecific” to allow the Legislature to do its job of enacting laws.
Sen. William Gannon, R-Sandown, strongly disagreed with Guida, calling the proposed amendment “an empty bag.”
“This is so vague,” Gannon said. “The victim was going to have a seat at the table and you’ve taken everything away from them.”
Giuda’s amendment was ultimately defeated, with senators voting 18-5.
Marsy’s Law requires supermajority support in both the New Hampshire House and Senate. If it passes the House in April, it will be placed on the November ballot. A two-thirds majority vote is needed for the measure to pass.
(Alyssa Dandrea can be reached at 369-3319, adandrea@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @_ADandrea.)