Grimaud v. Com.

865 A.2d 835

581 Pa. 398

Gerald C. GRIMAUD, John G. Bergdoll, and Matthew R. Battersby, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Honorable Yvette Kane, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Appellee, John M. Perzel, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Senator Robert C. Jubelirer, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Intervenors.

No. .

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 11, 2004.

Decided January 18, 2005.

Matthew R. Battersby, Esq., John G. Bergdoll, Esq., Gerald C. Grimaud, Esq., Fairfield, for et al Grimaud.

Gerald J. Pappert, Esq., J. Bart DeLone, Esq., John G. Knorr, III, Esq., Calvin R. Koons, Esq., John T. Henderson, Jr., Harrisburg, for Hon. Yvette Kane, Sec. of the Com.

Jason K. Cohen, Esq., Jonathan F. Bloom, Esq., C. Clark Hodgson, Esq., Philadelphia, for John Perzel, Speaker of the House and Senator Robert Jubelirer.

BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.

OPINION

Justice EAKIN.

In the 1998 general election, the majority of the electorate approved amendments to Article I, § 6 (trial by jury) and Article I, § 14 (prisoners to be bailable; habeas corpus) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article I, § 14 (prisoners to be bailable; habeas corpus):

Before amendment, Article I, § 14 provided:

All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Pa. Const. art. I, § 14 (1997). In 1995, the General Assembly, seeking to amend this provision, passed Joint Resolution 1995-3:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for bail. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby resolves as follows:

Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:

That section 14 of Article I be amended to read:

§ 14. Prisoners to be bailable; habeas corpus.

All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses for which the maximum sentence is death or life imprisonment OR FOR OFFENSES FOR WHICH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT or unless no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community when the proof is evident or presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Joint Resolution No. 3, 1995, P.L. 1153, S.B. No. 12. In 1998, the General Assembly passed Joint Resolution 1998-1:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for bail. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby resolves as follows:

Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:

That section 14 of Article I be amended to read:

§ 14. Prisoners to be bailable; habeas corpus.

All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses or for offenses for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or unless no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community when the proof is evident or presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Joint Resolution No. 1, 1998, P.L. 1327, H.B. No. 1520. The Attorney General prepared a "plain English statement" and the proposed amendment was published. The amendment was submitted to the electorate, which voted in favor of it.

Article I, § 6 (trial by jury):

Before amendment, Article I, § 6 stated:

Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate. The General Assembly may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case.

Pa. Const. art. I, § 6 (1997). In 1996, the General Assembly passed Joint Resolution 1996-1:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for trial by jury and waiver of this right. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby resolves as follows:

Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:

That Article I, section 6, be amended to read:

THAT SECTION 6 OF ARTICLE I BE AMENDED TO READ:

§ 6. Trial by Jury.

Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate. The General Assembly may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case. Furthermore, in criminal cases the accused may waive the right to a jury trial only with the consent of the Commonwealth. THE COMMONWEALTH SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AS DOES THE ACCUSED.

Joint Resolution No. 1, 1996, P.L. 1545, S.B. No. 752. In 1998, the General Assembly passed Joint Resolution 1998-2, which stated:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for trial by jury. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby resolves as follows:

Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI:

That section 6 of Article I be amended to read:

§ 6. Trial by jury.

Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate. The General Assembly may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case. Furthermore, in criminal cases the Commonwealth shall have the same right to trial by jury as does the accused.

Joint Resolution No. 2, 1998, P.L. 1328, S.B. No. 555. The Attorney General prepared a "plain English statement" and the proposed amendment was published. The amendment was submitted to the electorate, which voted in favor of it.

Appellants filed a complaint in the Commonwealth Court seeking a declaration that the amendments were invalid, alleging: (1) each ballot question actually proposed multiple amendments in violation of Article XI, § 1; (2) the Attorney General's "plain English statement" regarding each ballot question failed to adequately set forth the purpose, limitations, and effects of each amendment as required by 25 P.S. § 2621.1; and (3) the General Assembly failed to comply with constitutional requirements for voting on the Joint Resolutions, precluding submission of the amendments to the electorate.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc, found the amendments valid. Grimaud v. Commonwealth, 806 A.2d 923, 925 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). Granting the Commonwealth's motion, the court explained the jury trial and bail questions each constitute a single amendment because they serve one core purpose and effectuate one substantive change; the "plain English statement" sufficiently explained the purpose, limitations, and effects of the amendments; the joint resolutions were passed in two successive sessions of the General Assembly; and the General Assembly utilized proper procedures in passing the joint resolutions. Id., at 929, 930, 934-35.

Article I, § 14

Appellants argue the bail question violated Article XI, § 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it twice amended Article I, § 14 by (1) expanding the capital offenses bail exception to include life imprisonment, and (2) adding preventive detention to the purpose of bail. Article XI, § 1 establishes the procedure for the General Assembly's proposal of amendments and the electorate's adoption, requiring that "[w]hen two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately." Pa. Const. art. XI, § 1. The bail ballot question presented to voters stated:

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to disallow bail when the proof is evident or presumption great that the accused committed an offense for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment or that no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment of the accused will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community?

Complaint, 10/19/98, at Exhibit A; R.R., at 84a.

The first question is what standard is applicable in determining whether the changes were properly presented as a single question. This Court's decision in Pennsylvania Prison Society v. Commonwealth, 565 Pa. 526, 776 A.2d 971 (2001) (plurality), resulted in no clear majority on the standard to apply. We are persuaded by Justice Saylor's concurrence suggesting "a subject-matter focus to determine whether alterations are sufficiently interrelated to justify their presentation to the electorate in a single question." Id., at 984 (Saylor, J., concurring, joined by Castille and Newman, JJ.). Persuasive authority comes from other jurisdictions which have utilized

a single-subject test and examined the interdependence of the proposed constitutional changes in determining the necessity for separate votes. See, e.g., Korte v. Bayless, (Ariz.2001) (explaining a "common-purpose formulation" to inquire into whether the proposed amendments are sufficiently related to "constitute a consistent and workable whole on the general topic embraced"); Clark v. State Canvassing Bd., (N.M.1995) (applying a "rational linchpin" of interdependence test); Sears v. State, (Ga.1974) (inquiring into whether all of the proposed changes "are germane to the accomplishment of a single objective") (quotations and citations omitted); Fugina v. Donovan, (Minn.1960) (upholding separate propositions that, although they could have been submitted separately, were rationally

...