Title: Pa. Prison Society, et al. v. Commonwealth of Pa. (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 46 MAP 1999
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: July 26, 2001

[J-60-2000] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY; JULIA D. HALL; GREGORY H. KNIGHT; FIGHT FOR LIFERS, INC.; WILLIAM GOLDSBY; JOAN PORTER; GRATERFRIENDS, INC.,JOAN F. GAUKER; VINCENT JOHNSON; FRIENDS COMMITTEE TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY, INC; KURT ROSENBERG; PENNSYLVANIA ABOLITIONISTS UNITED AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION BY TERRY RUMSEY AND WILLIAM GOLDSBY; TERRY RUMSEY, ROGER BUEHL, AM-7936 SCI-GREENE; DOUGLAS HOLLIS, AF-6355 SCI COAL TOWNSHIP, DIANNA HOLLIS, Appellees v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; HONORABLE TOM RIDGE, GOVERNOR; PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PARDONS; AND HONORABLE KIM PIZZINGRILLI, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW J. RYAN, AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND SENATOR ROBERT C. JUBELIRER, AS PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, INTERVENORS, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 46 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 1999 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered 03/22/99 at 893MD97. 727 A.2d 632 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) ARGUED: May 1, 2000 2 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: July 25, 2001 I agree with the majority that the ballot question violated the separate vote requirement of Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. I am compelled to dissent, however, because I do not believe that this constitutional violation should be excused on the basis that the second amendment, eliminating the language in Article IV, Section 9 that required two-thirds of the Senate to consent to the Governor’s Board appointments, did not actually modify the Senate’s power. Regardless of whether or not the amendment actually modified the Senate’s power, the ballot question at issue proposed multiple amendments to the electorate and such a practice clearly violates Article XI, Section 1.1 1 As this Court stated in Bergdoll v. Kane, 557 Pa. 72, 731 A.2d 1262 (1999), “[t]he Constitution is specific in providing a complete and detailed process for the amendment of that document . . . . [and] [n]othing short of literal compliance with this mandate will suffice.” 557 Pa. at 87, 731 A.2d at 1270. Moreover, the constitutional requirement that amendments be voted upon separately is integral to insuring that voters have an adequate opportunity to express their will concerning modifications to the fundamental law of our Commonwealth. See Commonwealth ex rel. v. Beamish, 309 Pa. 510, 164 A. 615 (1932); Pennsylvania Prison Society v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 727 A.2d 632, 634-35 (1999).