The power to forgive a crime or reduce a sentence is among the most serious powers a governor holds. It can correct an injustice, but it can also leave victims’ families asking why a court’s sentence was changed. Kentucky’s Amendment 1 asks voters to place a specific time limit on that power around elections for governor.

On November 3, 2026, voters will decide whether to change Section 77 of Kentucky’s Constitution. The proposal would prohibit pardons, sentence commutations and reprieves beginning 60 days before a gubernatorial election and ending on the fifth Tuesday afterward, the constitutional inauguration date. It would apply to governors of either party. It concerns elections for governor, not every general election.

A pardon forgives an offense. A commutation reduces punishment without erasing the conviction. A reprieve delays punishment. Although the ballot’s introductory question mentions pardons and commutations, the proposed constitutional language also includes reprieves.

On December 7, 2015, his final night in office, Democratic Governor Steve Beshear pardoned Cheryl McCafferty. A jury had convicted her of first-degree manslaughter in the 2007 shooting death of her husband, Robert, and she received an 18-year sentence. She had claimed self-defense but was convicted by a jury. McCafferty’s pardon drew criticism from her husband’s relatives and prosecutor Michelle Snodgrass, including objections about the lack of notice. Their concerns illustrate how a governor’s decision can reopen painful questions for families who believed a criminal case had been settled.

In December 2019, outgoing Republican Governor Matt Bevin pardoned Patrick Baker and reduced his sentence to time served. Baker had been convicted in state court of reckless homicide and other crimes connected to Donald Mills’s killing. Bevin questioned the evidence against him. The decision drew criticism.

A federal jury later convicted Baker of murder during a drug-trafficking crime.

These cases show why limits on executive power should rest on principle rather than party loyalty. A governor’s duty to consider mercy deserves respect. So do the judgments of courts, the interests of victims and the public’s right to scrutinize decisions with lasting consequences.

A YES vote adopts the proposed restriction. A NO vote leaves the current provision unchanged. The question is whether this defined pause strikes the right balance between mercy and accountability. That standard should be the same whether the governor signing a pardon is a Democrat or a Republican.