On November 3, Kentucky voters will see Amendment 1 on their ballots, a constitutional change that would restrict a governor’s power to grant pardons or commute sentences during the final 60 days of a gubernatorial campaign and until the incoming governor takes office. The measure is being promoted as a safeguard against “lame‑duck” pardons, a practice some voters view as an abuse of executive clemency at the end of a term.
Legislative background and sponsor
The amendment was introduced by Republican State Senator Chris McDaniel of Taylor Mill in northern Kentucky. McDaniel said the proposal stems from his frustration with former Governor Matt Bevin’s controversial end‑of‑term pardons and commutations in 2019. He noted that the effort spanned seven years and six regular legislative sessions before the measure cleared the General Assembly and earned a place on the 2026 ballot.
What the amendment would change
Section 77 of the Kentucky Constitution would be revised to read, in part, that the governor may remit fines, commute sentences, and grant reprieves and pardons “except for the period beginning sixty days prior to the date of the gubernatorial election and ending the fifth Tuesday succeeding the election.” Outside that window, the governor would retain full clemency powers.
In addition, the amendment would require the governor to file a public statement of reasons with each clemency application, ensuring transparency and public inspection of the decision‑making process.
Rationale and opposition
Supporters argue that limiting clemency during the campaign period protects the public from politically motivated pardons and reinforces accountability to the electorate. They also contend that the transparency requirement would deter secret deals and provide voters with clearer insight into the governor’s use of this power.
Critics, including some civil‑rights groups and criminal‑justice reform advocates, warn that the amendment could impede legitimate mercy cases, especially for individuals who have exhausted appeals and rely on executive clemency as a final remedy. They caution that a blanket restriction may prevent the governor from correcting wrongful convictions or addressing humanitarian concerns during the specified period.
How the vote will be presented
Ballot language asks voters a straightforward yes‑or‑no question: “Are you in favor of limiting a Governor’s ability to grant pardons or commute sentences by prohibiting him or her from granting pardons or commuting sentences during the time period beginning 60 days prior to the general election at which the Governor is elected, and ending when the Governor is sworn in for that term by amending the Constitution of Kentucky as stated below?”
The amendment requires only a simple majority to pass, meaning that a slim margin could reshape the state’s clemency framework for years to come.
What’s at stake for Kentucky voters
Beyond the immediate policy shift, the amendment reflects a broader conversation about the balance of power between the executive branch and the electorate. For voters who prioritize strong constitutional limits and transparency, the measure offers a concrete tool to curb perceived executive overreach. For those who value the governor’s ability to act swiftly in extraordinary circumstances, the restriction may feel like an unnecessary constraint.
As Election Day approaches, both sides are mobilizing grassroots efforts to inform Kentuckians about the potential impact of Amendment 1. Local media outlets, faith‑based organizations, and community groups are hosting informational sessions, distributing literature, and encouraging voters to consider how the amendment aligns with their views on government accountability and individual liberty.
Regardless of the outcome, the vote on Amendment 1 will serve as a bellwether for how Kentucky residents view the role of executive clemency in a democratic society.
Original reporting: WLWT Cincinnati — read the source article.
