COLUMBUS — A proposed constitutional amendment spelling out crime victims’ rights would have minimal impact on state finances but could lead to higher costs for counties and their courts, a state fiscal analysis suggests.

Issue 1 on Ohio’s ballot on Nov. 7 will ask voters to approve Marsy’s Law, setting out what victims should expect from the criminal justice system. Those would-be rights giving victims greater influence in the outcome of criminal proceedings would expand on rights already etched in the constitution and state law.

An analysis this week by the state Office of Budget and Management suggests the attorney general’s office, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Department of Youth Services, Ohio Court of Claims, and public defender’s office could experience minor cost increases if voters say “yes” to Issue 1.

“Potential costs on the local level could be more significant, particularly as they relate to the court system and public defender costs borne by counties…,” budget Director Tim Keen wrote. “While this amendment does not explicitly or specifically direct additional expenditures by state or local government entities, the fact that it makes changes to the way courts and related agencies at the state and local level administer victims’ rights could impact costs.”

His office’s legally required analysis, published on the secretary of state’s web site, suggests that an expansion of definition of “victim” to include family members, an expansion of crimes from which victims could expect “full and prompt restitution,” expanded notices for additional victims, and the ability of these people to appeal some decisions could increase costs at the local level, it said.

“…it is reasonable to assume that if successful, additional costs may be incurred by local courts related to increased caseload and staffing requirements to comply with State Issue 1,” the report reads. “The potential for increased caseloads may also affect counties’ costs related to the provision of public defender services for the defendant or juvenile offender.

“Due to the potential expansion of victim participation under the constitutional amendment in State Issue 1, case resolution may take more time to achieve in the court system, which will in turn affect the time devoted by public defenders to these cases,” it reads.

There is no organized opposition to Issue 1. It has the support of the Fraternal Order of Police and some other law enforcement and victim rights organizations. But it is officially opposed by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, which worries, among other things, that the amendment could slow down the criminal justice process.

Marsy’s Law would guarantee victims the rights to fair treatment and respect in the justice system, the ability to be put on a list to be notified and be heard at all public proceedings, reasonable protection from the accused, the ability to refuse some discovery requests from the defense, full and timely restitution, and the ability to confer with the government’s attorney.

“Some counties aren’t doing their job right now in terms of notification and crime victims laws,” said Aaron Marshall, spokesman for the “yes” campaign. “They’re not following the law, so it costs less in those jurisdictions. Tim Keen looked at a spreadsheet, but he doesn’t know how well counties are following the law. You can’t discount a victim’s rights.”

The proposed amendment is named for Marsalee Ann Nicholas, a 21-year-old California college senior murdered in 1983 by her ex-boyfriend. Its primary financial backer is her brother— Henry, a Cincinnati native and California high-tech entrepreneur.

Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.

First Published October 13, 2017, 1:53 p.m.