Vote NO on both constitutional amendments. Neither one will improve Kentucky’s legal system.

The last time Marsy’s Law was on the ballot, it was rejected by the state Supreme Court for being insufficiently detailed and descriptive.

That means Kentucky got a redo, and we should not lose this chance to send this bad idea packing.

Marsy’s Law is a confusing hodgepodge of ideas that upholds many victims rights already in law but could also make court proceedings much more complicated.

It’s only gotten this far because it’s the brainchild of a California billionaire Henry T. Nicholas III, whose sister, Marsy, was killed by an ex-boyfriend. He was then released on bail without notification to the family. Nicholas has spent $5 million across the country, (money that would have been better spent on domestic violence programs), and roughly $300,000 in Kentucky, to get Marsy’s Law on the ballot.

The law would give crime victims a formal say at every important hearing, even before a defendant is convicted or it’s been established that a crime occurred. The law requires courts to have “due consideration for their safety, dignity and privacy,” which could mean anything or nothing.

Victims’ rights are already protected under Kentucky law, says the Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“If the voices of complaining witnesses and victims are not being heard, it is because prosecutors and judges are not following the statutes that already protect these rights. The solution is not to create a constitutional amendment that weakens your constitutional rights if you, a friend or family member is accused of a crime,” the group said in a statement.

When it comes to constitutional amendments, the state should consider only important and serious proposals, not the personal tragedy of someone rich enough to move mountains (and legislators). Kentuckians should vote no on Marsy’s Law.

The second constitutional amendment is to extend district court judges from four to eight-year terms, the same as circuit, family and appellate court judges. In addition, the new statute would require district judges to have eight years of experience as attorneys, up from two years. Supporters argue that district judges now see so many cases that they need more legal experience.

The amendment would also lengthen the terms of Commonwealth Attorneys from six to eight years. Shockingly, we agree with conservative Republican House member John Schickel of Northern Kentucky, which has seen some judicial scandals recently. There is no reason that judges should serve longer than any other elected official. Instead of lengthening the terms of one set of lawyers, they should all be elected for four to ensure proper accountability.

Vote no on both constitutional amendments found on the back of your ballots.