League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Boockvar

247 A.3d 1183 (Table)

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA and Lorraine Haw, Petitioners

v.Kathy BOOCKVAR, the Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth, Respondent

No. 578 M.D. 2019

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: June 10, 2020

Filed: January 7, 2021

ORDER ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7^th day of January, 2021, the application for summary relief filed by Petitioners, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. The Court hereby declares that the proposed amendment to Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, as set forth in Joint Resolution No. 2019-1 (Proposed Amendment), violates Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and, therefore, is unconstitutional.

2. The Court further declares that all votes cast on the Proposed Amendment in the November 2019 general election are invalid.

3. The Secretary of the Commonwealth is ordered not to tabulate or certify any votes cast on the Proposed Amendment in the November 2019 general election.

4. All other requests for declaratory relief are denied as moot.

Judge Ceisler files an opinion in support of the order announcing the judgment of the Court in which Judge Wojcik joins.

Judge McCullough files an opinion in support of the order announcing the judgment of the Court.

President Judge Leavitt files an opinion in opposition to the order announcing the judgment of the Court in which Judge Fizzano Cannon joins.

Judges Cohn Jubelirer, Brobson, Covey, and Crompton did not participate in the decision of this matter.

MEMORANDUM OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY JUDGE CEISLER

This Petition for Review (Petition) comes before us in our original jurisdiction. Petitioners are the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania¹ and Lorraine Haw,² a registered Pennsylvania voter (collectively, Voters). Respondent is Kathy Boockvar, Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary).³ Voters have requested declaratory relief, as well as an injunction to prevent presentation of a ballot question to the electorate during the November 2019 General Election (Ballot Question). The Ballot Question asked the electorate to decide whether a new amendment, Section 9.1 (Proposed Amendment), should be added to Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, PA. CONST. art. I. The Proposed Amendment, also known as the Victims' Rights Amendment, would create a number of new constitutional rights for victims and others directly impacted by crimes.

The parties have filed cross-applications for summary relief. After thorough review, the Court grants in part and denies in part Voters' application for summary relief in the form of declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court denies the Secretary's application for summary relief.

I. Background

On June 19, 2019, the Senate passed the Proposed Amendment as House Bill 276, also known as Joint Resolution 2019-1. The impetus of the Proposed Amendment is protection for the rights of victims and others directly impacted by crimes. See Appendix at iii-v for the full text of the Proposed Amendment.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 201.1 of the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code),⁴ 25 P.S. § 2621.1, the Attorney General prepared a Plain English Statement⁵ of the Proposed Amendment's contents. See Appendix at i-iii for the full text of the Plain English Statement.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 1110(b) of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 3010(b), the Secretary prepared the Ballot Question for approval by the General Assembly. Although the Proposed Amendment contains 749 words excluding its title, any ballot question presented for voting is statutorily restricted to not more than 75 words. Id. Here, the Ballot Question was 73 words long. See Appendix at i for the text of the Ballot Question.

The parties agree that the Proposed Amendment, the Plain English Statement, and the Ballot Question were all properly published and accessible to the electorate in advance of the November 2019 election, as required by Section 201.1 of the Election Code.

On October 10, 2019, Voters filed their Petition in this Court's original jurisdiction, challenging the constitutionality of the Proposed Amendment and the Ballot Question.⁶ Voters also filed an application for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin presentation of the Ballot Question pending final disposition of the Petition on the merits. A preliminary injunction hearing was held on October 23, 2019 (PI hearing).⁷ Following the PI hearing, this Court found Voters sustained their burden of proving they met the criteria for obtaining a preliminary injunction. Therefore, this Court issued an order preliminarily enjoining tabulation and certification of the votes on the Proposed Amendment pending a disposition of the Petition on the merits.⁸ Our Supreme Court affirmed.⁹ League of Women Voters v. Boockvar , 219 A.3d 594 (Pa. 2019).

On December 13, 2019, the parties filed cross-applications for summary relief pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b). The cross-applications for summary relief are now before this Court for disposition.

II. Issues

In the three counts of the Petition, Voters present three main issues for disposition by this Court, which we summarize as follows.

In Count I of the Petition, Voters aver that the Proposed Amendment would effect multiple significant and separate changes to the Pennsylvania Constitution by mandating a wide range of new, separate, and independent rights to victims and others directly impacted by a crime. Voters assert that the Proposed Amendment would impermissibly extend new powers to the General Assembly, infringe the authority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Governor, and amend multiple existing constitutional articles and sections pertaining to multiple subjects. For these reasons, Voters argue that the Proposed Amendment violates Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution¹⁰ by impermissibly encompassing multiple subjects and thus preventing the electorate from voting "yes" to the Proposed Amendment provisions they approve and "no" to the Proposed Amendment provisions they oppose.

In Count II of the Petition, Voters assert that the Ballot Question further violates Article XI, Section 1,¹¹ because the Ballot Question does not contain the actual text of the Proposed Amendment. Voters interpret Article XI, Section 1 to require publication on the ballot of the entire text of the Proposed Amendment.

In Count III of the Petition, Voters allege that the Proposed Amendment, the Ballot Question, and the Plain English Statement do not fairly, accurately, and clearly apprise the electorate of the issues because they fail to inform the electorate of many changes that the Proposed Amendment would effect on existing constitutional rights of the accused. See Sprague v. Cortes , 145 A.3d 1136, 1141 (Pa. 2016) ; Stander v. Kelley , 250 A.2d 474, 480 (Pa. 1969).

III. Discussion

A. Introduction

Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution is the Commonwealth's Declaration of Rights, which delineates the terms of the social contract between government and the people that are of such "general, great and essential" quality as to be ensconced as "inviolate." PA. CONST. art. I, preamble & § 25; see also PA. CONST. art. I, § 2 ; Robinson Twp., Wash. Cnty. v. Commonwealth , 83 A.3d 901, 947 (Pa. 2013).

In considering the text of the provisions, we first look to their placement in the larger charter. The structure of the Pennsylvania Constitution highlights the primacy of Pennsylvania's protection of individual rights: "The very first Article of the Pennsylvania Constitution consists of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, and the first section of that Article affirms, among other things, that all citizens ‘have certain inherent and indefeasible rights.’ "

Commonwealth v. Molina , 104 A.3d 430, 442 (Pa. 2014) (quoting Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie , 812 A.2d 591, 603 (Pa. 2002) ).

Moreover, our charter further protects the rights detailed in Article I, Section 25: "To guard against transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate." Id. (quoting PA. CONST. art. I, § 25 ). "Unlike the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution which emerged as a later addendum in 1791, the Declaration of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution was an organic part of the state's original constitution of 1776, and appeared (not coincidentally) first in that document." Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Edmunds , 586 A.2d 887, 896 (Pa. 1991) ).

Under our system, one accused of a crime is presumed innocent until the prosecuting attorney has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to an impartial jury of the vicinage that he and the malefactor are identical, or that his actions match the definition or conform to the elements of the malefaction of which he stands accused.

Commonwealth v. Raffensberger , 435 A.2d 864, 865 (Pa. Super. 1981). "This presumption of innocence is but one of the many aspects of the fundamental law of our land. Like its counterparts, it emanates from the core concept which seeks to restrain governmental excess and prevent abuse by those exercising state power." Id. (emphasis added). "As it pursues justice the Commonwealth is thus committed not only to the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty, but also to the principle of fairness in criminal prosecutions. Indeed, these principles are complementary[;] one without the other would frustrate the ends and objectives of justice." Id.

"The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error." In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358, 363 (1970). The presumption of innocence is a bedrock, axiomatic and elementary principle, the enforcement of which lies at the...