PORTLAND — Crime victims and their families could play a bigger role in trials and sentencing under two statewide measures on the May 20 ballot.

Measures 51 and 52 essentially make the same changes to two different sections of the Oregon Constitution, including the crime victims’ right to be present at key stages in a case and to be consulted about plea negotiations in some cases and to be heard at sentencing.

Many of those rights are already spelled out in Oregon law but lack enforcement provisions. The measures would also grant the right of appeal for victims who claim their rights are denied.

Steve Doell, president of Crime Victims United, said the amendments will help avoid situations such as a case in Eastern Oregon involving the parents of a murder victim.

In that case, Doell said, a college student was beaten and set afire by his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend. The prosecutor assured the victim’s parents the ex-boyfriend would get life in prison without parole for his aggravated murder conviction, but when they were called to the sentencing hearing the parents learned the plea deal was for life with the possibility of parole after 30 years.

Under the changes that would be made by Measures 51 and 52, the victim’s parents would have been included in the trial and the plea negotiations, and allowed to object, Doell said.

“That’s a pretty egregious case, but that’s what we’re getting at,” Doell said. “If these ballot measures pass, the victim’s parents would have to be in court, and asked if they had been consulted, and if they agree with the plea.”

Currently, the constitution says a victim’s rights cannot invalidate a court rule or hold up a case.

The two measures — both constitutional amendments referred to voters by the Legislature — have nothing but arguments in their favor listed in the state Voters’ Pamphlet.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association are officially neutral on the twin measures but their directors say it was the result of concerns that the original crime victim ballot measures in 1999 expanded the rights of victims at the expense of the constitutional rights of the accused.

“Personally, I think Measures 51 and 52 are improvements on the original crime victim measures,” said Dave Fidanque, ACLU executive director for Oregon.

A third statewide measure on the primary ballot, Measure 53, would amend the Oregon Constitution to modify the limits voters placed on civil forfeiture with the Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000.

The act said that property can be forfeited only if a person is convicted of a crime and state or local government provides clear and convincing evidence that the property was related to the crime.

Fidanque, one of the architects of the 2000 act, said it changed longstanding forfeiture laws that allowed law enforcement agencies to seize and sell property even if the owner was never arrested, charged or convicted of a crime.

But the Legislature included a sunset provision for 2005 when the law was enacted, and after a legal challenge it took until 2008 to reach a compromise on a new version that resulted in Measure 53, he said.

Fidanque noted the ACLU is also officially neutral on the forfeiture measure but was involved in drafting the three measures.

Among the changes Measure 53 would make to the 2000 act are:

* Allow forfeiture from property owners convicted of similar crimes.

* Allow forfeiture without criminal conviction when the property owner intended to defeat forfeiture or knew, or should have known, the property was related to criminal conduct.

* Change the standard in personal property forfeitures from “clear and convincing evidence” to “preponderance of evidence” and create an exception for cash, weapons and other things found in close proximity to controlled substances or other “instrumentalities” of criminal conduct.