It’s a safe bet that no one in the Idaho Legislature would vote against rights for crime victims.

Nor would anyone else in state, most likely.

“That’s not even rational,” said Scot Haug, Post Falls police chief. “It would be like saying you’re in favor of clubbing the Easter Bunny.”

Exactly what to do about strengthening victims’ rights is an entirely different matter, however.

The Legislature, by virtue of a fairly emphatic House committee decision, stated during its last session that perhaps nothing needs to be done at all.

Yet the issue isn’t going away anytime soon.

An intense lobbying effort to insert slightly stronger language into the Idaho Constitution — specifically, to the 1994 amendment that spelled out rights afforded to crime victims — has been going on for more than a year, and will be a highlight of the 2018 session.

The campaign is being funded by California billionaire Henry Nicholas, whose sister Marsalee was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983.

Nicholas has made the notion of iron-tough protection for victims his life’s work, and he has poured millions into the effort to push what is called “Marsy’s Law” into every state constitution he can reach.

Although what’s known here as “Marsy’s Law for Idaho” has the support of many lawmakers (the state Senate approved it 34-0 before a House setback in the 2017 session), the brightest lights currently shining on the subject come courtesy of Nicholas and his lobbyists.

The group recently held a press conference in Boise, fronted by Senate Majority Caucus Chair Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, and featuring an impassioned plea by Lauren Busdon, an 18-year-old rape victim and victims’ rights advocate who has given talks about empowerment around the state.

Many legislators, advocacy groups, law enforcement officials and victim support organizations also would like to see the 1994 amendment changed, although no one is claiming that the proposed new amendment contains any blockbuster revisions.

“Honestly, the biggest thing may be giving these rights protection in the constitution rather than simply from statutes,” said Mary Souza, R-Coeur d’Alene, one of the senators who delivered that unanimous show of support in the last session.

“Victims’ protection always has to be our No. 1 priority, and putting the strongest possible rights — plus language to ensure enforcement — into our constitution is a way to help people who are in the justice system through no fault of their own,” Souza said.

Changing the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, then a simple majority of state voters in the next general election.

It was the State Affairs Committee that killed the proposal last term, and four of the “Nay” votes in a 10-5 defeat came from North Idaho legislators: Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens; Heather Scott, R-Blanchard; Paulette Jordan, D-Plummer; and Priscilla Giddings, R-White Bird.

The committee endured three days of hearings and debate before delivering what was considered a surprising result.

“All of us there, and in the entire Legislature, want to ensure strong victims’ rights,” Giddings said. “As much as we want to see victims treated fairly, the bar for altering the constitution should be pretty high — and the proposal we saw had a lot of question marks, in my opinion.

“Most of the things that would go into this amendment are already statutory law. I believe we should make sure these statutes are enforced before we go changing the constitution.

“Beyond that, there are also several items listed in the amendment that could leave law enforcement and prosecutors with problems, because there are no details.

“The definition of victim is expanded to anyone in the ‘proximity’ of the crime. What is proximity? If something happens in the parking lot of a store, does that store qualify as a victim with equal standing as the person who is assaulted or killed?

“You can find plenty of questions in this proposal, like estimating the cost and personnel required, and no matter how far you dig, there are no specific answers.”

During the 2016 legislative session, opposition came from the American Civil Liberties Union, Idaho Defense Attorneys (fearing diminished ability to defend under a victim-friendly system), and perhaps surprisingly, the Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, worried that putting such a burden on the criminal justice system would actually weaken victims’ rights.

“You obviously want to do everything possible to support victims,” Haug said. “That’s a given. But whenever you add broad definitions to the law, there can be unintended consequences, and we need to talk about that.

“On the other hand, you could argue that this change to the constitution is simply to say: ‘This is who we are. This is what we believe.’

“Maybe you do it even though we have laws in place, and victim advocates who are doing a great job, and with proper law enforcement the change isn’t strictly necessary.

“Maybe you do. Right now, I’m not so sure.”

To state Rep. Luke Malek, (R-Coeur d’Alene), current candidate for Congress and former prosecutor, the equation here is pretty simple.

“If you read the language,” Malek said, “it’s certainly possible to add rights — with the weight of the constitution behind them — and do so without the exclusion of others’ rights.

“This would not do anything to a defense attorney or to the client. Rights are not mutually exclusive.”

Malek said he expects the “Marsy’s Law for Idaho” bill — with the exact wording as last term — will be introduced first in the House, and that it again would be handed to the State Affairs Committee.

“I think this is a matter of doing a better job explaining the benefits of enshrining victims’ rights in the constitution with improved language,” Malek said. “Then it becomes about persuasively answering questions concerning the result.

“Victims deserve that effort.”