Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 would restrict governor’s pardon timing, lawmakers say

Kentucky voters will be asked to consider a proposed constitutional change that would narrow when a governor can issue pardons, under an initiative labeled Constitutional Amendment 1, according to WKYT. The amendment would limit a governor’s ability to issue pardons within 60 days of an election and continuing until the next inauguration. The intent, as described by the measure’s advocates, is to curb last-minute or outgoing-administration pardons during a period when Kentucky leadership is scheduled to change. WKYT identified Sen. Chris McDaniel and Sen. Reggie Thomas as sponsors of the proposal, appearing in the report’s accompanying image. The measure targets the governor’s constitutional pardon power, a authority that can significantly affect criminal case outcomes and public safety planning for victims, law enforcement, and courts. Under the proposal’s framework, the timing restriction would apply regardless of the underlying facts of individual cases during the covered period, meaning a governor could still act on other matters while being barred from granting pardons during the window from 60 days before an election through the start of a new term. The limitation is framed as a constitutional guardrail rather than a policy change that could be adjusted later through executive order. If the amendment is adopted, it would become part of Kentucky’s constitutional structure, which generally requires a higher threshold for change than ordinary legislation. The practical effect would be to alter how the state’s executive branch exercises clemency power, particularly for individuals whose requests are under review during election cycles. Election-cycle restrictions on clemency are often examined in terms of due process, transparency, and public accountability, because pardons can remove or reduce criminal consequences and may affect how communities address public safety concerns. In Kentucky, the governor’s pardon authority is used selectively and can carry wide-ranging consequences for families, victims, and correctional administration, especially when decisions cluster near leadership transitions.

keyFacts」:[