AN ACT proposing to amend Section 77 of the Constitution of Kentucky relating to limiting the Governor's ability to grant pardons.
Summary
HB394 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would narrow the Governor of Kentucky’s pardon power. Under current Section 77, the Governor may commute sentences, grant reprieves, and grant pardons, subject to existing constitutional limits. This bill would add a new restriction prohibiting pardons for people who have not yet been convicted of a crime, unless the person is currently under investigation or being prosecuted for that crime. The measure also preserves the existing exception for impeachment and keeps the requirement that the Governor file a public statement explaining each pardon decision.
Because it is a constitutional amendment, the bill does not directly change ordinary statutes; instead, it would change the Kentucky Constitution if approved by voters. The proposal also includes election-administration provisions directing the Secretary of State and county clerks to publish and place the amendment question on the ballot at the next regular general election for members of the General Assembly. If adopted, the amendment would limit executive clemency authority in pre-conviction situations and would affect how pardon applications are evaluated for individuals who have not yet been convicted.
Impact
HB394 would amend Section 77 of the Kentucky Constitution, reducing the Governor’s clemency authority by barring pardons for unconvicted persons except when they are under active investigation or prosecution. It would not alter criminal statutes directly, but it would constrain executive power and change the constitutional framework governing pardons, reprieves, and commutations. The bill also imposes ballot-publication and certification duties on the Secretary of State and county clerks to place the proposed amendment before voters.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence of support or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for limiting executive clemency and tightening safeguards around pardons. The absence of discussion or votes means the overall legislative sentiment cannot be measured from the available record.
Contention
The main point of contention is the scope of the Governor’s pardon power, especially whether pardons should ever be available before a conviction. Supporters would likely view the change as a check on executive discretion and a safeguard against premature clemency, while opponents may argue it unnecessarily restricts the Governor’s constitutional authority and could interfere with case-specific mercy or justice considerations. Another possible issue is the carveout for people under investigation or prosecution, which may be seen as either a necessary exception or an ambiguous standard depending on how it is applied.