Opinion ID: 1911989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: County Referendum Question

Text: In apparent response to the Voter Referendum Petition, County Council passed two ordinances relating to its own proposed referendum question. First, on July 15, 2008, County Council passed Ordinance No. 23-08, purporting to confer the power to initiate referenda onto County Council by adding a new subsection to the Allegheny County Code, § 5-1101.02(B)(2). Under the new subsection, County Council could propose a referendum question without meeting the signature requirements, which as noted require the signatures of voters equal to five percent of those voters who participated in the most recent gubernatorial election. On July 29, 2008, using the power purportedly conferred by Ordinance 23-08, County Council enacted Ordinance No. 24-08, which sought to place the following question on the then upcoming ballot: Shall the County enact an ordinance to increase real estate taxes in order to repeal the alcoholic drink tax? Additionally, the ordinance provided for the provisional amendment of the Allegheny County Code to accomplish the repeal of the Drink Tax and the increase of the real estate tax to compensate for the revenue lost due to the abolition of the Drink Tax. The ordinances were both approved by the County Executive. The County Referendum Question was deemed facially complete by the Division of Elections. On September 2, 2008, the temporary Board of Elections concluded that, like the Voter Referendum Question, the County Referendum Question was also insufficient. The County filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which heard the case in conjunction with the appeal of the Board of Elections' decision denying the Voter Referendum Question of Appellant Casey. John E. Graf, an Allegheny County resident and owner of The Priory, a lodging and dining establishment, and County Councilmember Charles McCullough, hereinafter, Appellees, filed petitions to intervene on September 12, 2008, which the court granted. After a hearing on the matter, the Court of Common Pleas affirmed the denial of the placement of the question on the ballot. The court based its affirmance on the same rationale used in the Voter Referendum case, finding the question to be advisory given that the power to set the rate of a tax is vested solely in County Council, not the voters. Indeed, the court filed one opinion addressing both referendum questions. Similarly, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision to keep County Council's question off the November 2008 ballot, adopting the analysis of the Court of Common Pleas. The County filed a petition for allowance of appeal to this Court, which we granted and heard argument in conjunction with the Voter Referendum Petition case. [14] In arguing that the County Referendum Question is permissible, the County has the difficult task of explaining why its referendum question does not fail for the same reasons that the County argued that the Voter Referendum Question should fail. As noted, the County argued that the authority to set the rates of taxation rested with County Council under § 2962(b), such that a referendum to set the rate of the Drink Tax would be impermissible as an advisory, non-binding referendum. The argument is complicated by the County's need to demonstrate that its proposed ordinance does not involve an impermissible delegation of legislative authority. Before this Court, the County asserts that the decision to place a referendum on the ballot is within the broad grant of powers under the Home Rule law. It notes that Article IX, § 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that a home rule municipality may exercise any power and perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time. The County, therefore, agrees with the Court of Common Pleas that the § 2962(b) vests the power to set rates of taxation with County Council. The County, however, challenges the court's determination that the County Referendum Question constitutes an impermissible delegation of that legislative authority. The County, citing Appeal of Locke, 72 Pa. 491 (1873), argues that the question is permissible because the County Referendum Question merely seeks to determine a state of facts upon which an ordinance will operate, and not to set policy. [15] Here, the County asserts, Ordinance 24 made mandatory changes in the tax policy, but made the changes dependent upon facts to be determined by the County Referendum Question. Moreover, the County contends that the County Referendum Question also meets the requirements of more modern explications of the proper delegation of legislative authority. It notes that in Gilligan v. Pa. Horse Racing Commission, 492 Pa. 92, 422 A.2d 487, 489 (1980), we stated that a delegation of authority must meet two tests. First, the basic policy choice must be made by the legislative body, and second, the legislation must contain adequate standards to guide the exercise of administrative functions. Id. The County argues that County Council made the basic policy choice to maintain revenues to fund the operation of County government at current levels. Therefore, the only fact to be determined by the voters was the method to maintain the levels either through the current mix of taxes or by abolishing the Drink Tax and increasing property taxes to obtain the same levels of revenue. Moreover, the County argues that the ordinance provides adequate standards for implementation because it is self-executing, dependent on the outcome of the referendum. Thus, the County essentially argues that because the County Referendum Question is merely an expression of the views of the voters that triggers contingent legislation already enacted by County Council, then the question does not entail an impermissible delegation of legislative authority and does not involve the setting of taxation rates by voter referendum, as did the Voter Referendum Question. Accordingly, the County argues that the County Referendum Question does not fail based on the power of County Council to set the rates of taxation, nor does it fail because of an improper delegation of authority. Appellees contend that the courts below correctly kept the County Referendum Question off the ballot. Appellees claim that the County Referendum Question is improper for several reasons. First, they assert that the question would result in an improper delegation of legislative power. They argue that, rather than constituting a referendum to determine facts as in Locke, this case involves a classic legislative policy choice regarding which of two taxes should be imposed on the citizenry. A legislative body, according to the Appellees, should not be allowed to evade difficult policy choices. Indeed, Appellees note that the Home Rule Charter vests in County Council the right and the duty to levy taxes and adopt a balanced budget pursuant to Article IV, §§ 1 and 2, and argues that County Council should not shirk their primary duties of managing the budgetary and fiscal affairs of the County. Second, Appellees claim that Ordinance 24, enacting the County Referendum Question, is void ab initio because there is no mechanism under the Home Rule Charter for County Council to enact a voter referendum. Appellees observe that Article XII of the Home Rule Charter provides for three actions involving voters. First, it addresses Agenda Initiatives whereby voters can propose ordinances by petition to County Council. Second, the Charter provides for Voter Referendum where the voters, upon attaining a number of signatures at least equal to five percent of the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election, can place a question on the ballot. Finally, Article XII allows for amendments to the Home Rule Charter to be submitted for referendum by an Ordinance of County Council or by petition of voters. Given the specific requirements of each item in Article XII, Appellees argue that only voters, upon attaining the requisite number of signatures, can call for a voter referendum on an issue, other than a Charter Amendment. Additionally, Appellees assert that County Council cannot confer on itself the power to initiate referendum as it attempted to do with Ordinance 23. Instead, Appellees argue that an amendment to the Home Rule Charter would be necessary to allow County Council to initiate referendum. Indeed, Appellees argue that allowing County Council to initiate referendum would change the form of government of Allegheny County, which would require an amendment to Article XII of the Home Rule Charter, addressing voter initiatives and referenda. Given that changes in the form of government are prohibited for five years following a prior change in government, 53 Pa.C.S. § 2929, Appellees argue that a new change in government would be time barred given the referendum in May 2005 to consolidate row offices in Allegheny County, which amended Article II of the Allegheny Home Rule Charter. Appellees also complain that the County Referendum improperly sets the subjects of taxation, which violates § 2962(a)(6) of the Home Rule Law, in addition to the Allegheny County Code, § 5-1101.02(C)(3)(f). Moreover, they argue that the County Referendum Question violates the Allegheny County Code's provision that all referendum must be limited to a single issue, because the County Referendum Question relates to the issue of property taxes as well as the issue of the Drink Tax. Allegheny County Code, § 5-1101.02(C)(1). Finally, Appellees argue that the County Referendum Question, which purports to increase property taxes in addition to abolishing the Drink Tax, improperly gives the voters authority to set the rates of taxation on residents, a power they claim is reserved to County Council under § 2962(b), pursuant to Musewicz, 925 A.2d 172. In conclusion, the Appellees assert that if we allow the County Referendum Question on the ballot, then [a]dvisory, government-initiated referenda will crop up whenever a governing body wants to duck its duty to represent the people. Pennsylvania will become a `proposition state' but with a twist: a host of provincial referendum questions will clog an already inefficient local government labyrinth. Appellees' Brief at 7. We agree with the courts below and the Appellees that the County Referendum Question is insufficient to be placed upon the ballot. While we acknowledge the variety of reasons cited by Appellees for the County Referendum Question's failure, we focus on but one of the issues and conclude that County Council has no authority to enact a referendum under the Home Rule Charter. As stated, the Home Rule Charter provides three methods for voter involvement in governance. The Charter has no provision for County Council to propose voter referendum, outside of an amendment of the Charter. The only method provided for placing a voter referendum on the ballot is through the collection of, currently, 23,000 signatures of registered voters (five percent of the number who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election). The requirement that such a substantial portion of the electorate approve the placement of a question on the ballot protects Allegheny County's representative government. As previously noted by the Commonwealth Court, our Commonwealth's system of government disfavors governance by referendum: One of the prices paid for the creation of a representative democracy is the vesting by the electorate of trust and responsibility in its elected representatives. Discretion is placed within the hands of the municipal legislators and we must accept the lawful exercise of this discretion. The efficiency of government, its stability, and the protection of the public at large necessitates the creation of certain categories wherein the legislative prerogative is unfettered by the initiative and referendum processes. The electorate nevertheless is not helpless in defending itself against unlawful legislation in the statutorily excluded areas, for it is before our courts that one may come and assert the illegality of a particular piece of legislation. Furthermore, it is at the ballot box that a voter may express his disapproval of the legislative programs of his elected officials. Williams v. Rowe, 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 537, 283 A.2d 881, 885 (1971). We agree with Appellees that to allow a majority of the nine councilmembers to place a referendum on the ballot undermines the protections placed in the Home Rule Charter and potentially opens the County to a dramatic change in governance without an amendment to the Home Rule Charter. If County Council believes this is a proper change, it should propose an amendment to the Charter to determine if the voters of the County approve of County Council governing by referendum. [16] Only after a change in the Home Rule Charter can County Council potentially propose referendum. As this procedure was not followed in this case, we conclude that the Election Board and the courts below properly deemed the County Referendum Question insufficient. [17] Accordingly, we affirm the decisions barring the Voter Referendum Question and the County Referendum Question from the ballot. Chief Justice CASTILLE, Justice SAYLOR and EAKIN, Justice TODD, Justice McCAFFERY and Justice GREENSPAN join the opinion.