BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - Incorporating victims’ rights provisions into North Dakota’s Constitution will have unintended consequences and do nothing to strengthen crime victim laws in the state, officials from advocacy groups said Thursday.
If approved by voters in November, the so-called constitutional amendment known as Marsy’s Law would put “a $5 bad check case on the same legal footing as a rape or murder case when it comes to the victim services required,” said Darla Juma, president of the North Dakota Victim Assistance Association. “And that will bog down our court system and harm the victims who need it most.”
Groups representing women and crime victims joined North Dakota prosecutors Thursday in Bismarck to oppose a campaign that supporters believe will bolster the rights of crime victims in the state.
If approved by voters, North Dakota would join California and Illinois in adopting Marsy’s Law.
The law is named after California college student Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, who was stalked and killed in 1983 by an ex-boyfriend. A week after she was killed, her mother and brother were confronted by the suspect at a store. They did not know the man had been released on bail.
Her brother, billionaire Henry Nicholas, is bankrolling the national effort to expand the law into more states, including South Dakota, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina and Nevada.
Nicholas is the sole contributor to the North Dakota effort, and has contributed more than 1 million, campaign filings show.
Supporters say crime victims should be given information about their rights and services available; should be notified of proceedings and major developments in their case; should be told of any changes in an offender’s custodial status; and be allowed to give input on plea agreements, among other things.
Kathleen Wrigley, wife of Lt. Gov. Drew Wrigley and chairwoman of the sponsoring committee, has said North Dakota is one of only 18 states that do not have constitutional rights for victims. She said the proposed constitutional amendment places the same protections afforded to criminal defendants.
Wrigley, in a statement Thursday, said those opposing the measure “are showing their callous disregard for equal rights for crime victims in North Dakota.”
The North Dakota Sheriff’s and Deputies Association also has endorsed the measure.
Janelle Moos, the executive director of North Dakota’s Council on Abused Women’s Services, and Renee Stromme, executive director of the North Dakota Women’s Network, said North Dakota already has laws that protect victims of violent crimes. And if any changes are needed, it should be handled by the state Legislature, opponents said.
North Dakota’s Constitution allows voters to bypass the Legislature and put a constitutional amendment directly to a vote if the proposal’s supporters can gather enough petition signatures, which has been done by supporters.
Opponents have no funding to mount a campaign against the measure, and will rely on voters to reject it as a bad idea that’s funded by a wealthy California businessman, said Aaron Birst, executive director of the North Dakota State’s Attorneys Association, which opposes the measure along with North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
“At the end of the day, I don’t think the money is going to win the day or lose the day,” Birst told reporters.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.