1994’s overwhelming voter approval of the victims’ rights constitutional amendment assured the rights of a victim to be notified of proceedings involving the accused and be heard at those proceedings without infringing on a constitutional cornerstone — that people accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty.

Insert California billionaire Henry Nicholas, who believes the victim’s rights idea he hatched for his state is superior to Idaho’s own time-tested approach. He’s been spending millions of his own money to promote his scheme around the nation in addition to funding “tough-on-crime” proposals in California aimed at blocking common sense criminal justice reform.

His argument is that crime victims should have at least the same rights as do criminal defendants in our system of justice and deserve standing and a voice in the process.

Let’s not forget that Idaho’s constitution already provides rights to crime victims regarding important notice access to court proceedings, the opportunity to be heard in court and restitution provisions.

However, Nicholas has gone further, and that’s the rub.

He pits victims’ rights against defendants’ rights by substantially diminishing the right to a fair trial and due process rights of the accused. In all, Nicholas’ proposal could slow down the trial process, delay timely and appropriate release of the accused and further clog our already overburdened Idaho judicial system.

Nicholas also provides for victims to have lawyers represent them at all proceedings involving their case, but does not guarantee victim’s lawyers, meaning only the rich will benefit or the government and its taxpayers will have to finance lawyers so the poor are not denied this new right.

None of this is to say that Idaho’s own constitutional provision couldn’t use some fine tuning.

An assessment of Idaho’s crime victims’ needs and services conducted in 2015 by Boise State University’s School of Public Service made 28 recommendations covering the entire spectrum of services that also reflected the stated needs of crime victims interviewed by researchers.

Prominent among them was creation of a statewide ombudsman to enforce the rights of victims.

“Unlike offenders who have the criminal court system to rectify violations of their statutory and constitutional rights, crime victims have little recourse if their rights are violated or not afforded to them,” the report said. “Legal rights, whether afforded through statute or constitution, are only as good as the mechanism that exists to rectify violations of those rights.”

The California plan lacks any enforcement mechanism.

Idaho researchers also called on the state to back up its victims’ rights guarantee with cash, something the California proposal also lacks.

“Idaho appears to be the only state in the country that does not specifically appropriate money in its budget for direct services to crime victims,” the report said.

That money could close service gaps, reduce barriers to receiving services, address high-need areas and finance enough victim witness coordinators to serve victims in every county.

Opposing Henry Nicholas’ California scheme is not to oppose victims’ rights. There are many ways we Idahoans could better support crime victims.

The creation of an ombudsman and state financial support would be two significant solutions that respond to the stated needs of Idaho crime victims, not the financial desires of a California billionaire.