Opinion ID: 1354990
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Enactment of Act 44

Text: In 2005, the Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in secret, negotiated with state legislators for the enactment of a bill increasing the salaries of the Commonwealth's judges and justices. Eventually, this pay hike was included in legislation that also increased the salaries for legislators and high-level executive branch employees. House Bill 1521, the bill that would become Act 44, was initially a 24-line bill entitled Relating to Compensation for Executive Branch Officials, which prohibited any member of the executive branch or any board from receiving compensation greater than that paid to the Governor. App. at 49. The House passed House Bill 1521. The Senate then amended House Bill 1521, changing it into a 27-line bill restricting its application to officials elected or appointed to an executive branch position after November 1, 2006. Id. at 50. The Senate passed the bill as amended. The House, however, rejected the revised bill and so House Bill 1521 was referred to a conference committee consisting of three House and three Senate members. The members of this conference committee, named as defendants in this litigation, included most of the General Assembly's leadership. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on July 7, 2005, the conference committee amended House Bill 1521, changing it from a twenty-seven-line bill about compensation for executive officials into a 22 page bill, providing for massive increases of up to 54% in the salary of every justice and judge of the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System, every member of the General Assembly, and senior members of the executive branch including the Governor and members of his Cabinet. Id. at 51. The revised bill also mandated that provisions of the Act are nonseverable and if any provision of the Act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of the Act are void. Id. at 65. According to Plaintiffs, by including this non-severability provision, the Commonwealth government intentionally created a financial conflict for state court judges to ensure they would not deviate from the negotiated goal of upholding salary increases for all three branches of state government. Id. at 66. This revised bill was presented to the Senate and House within minutes after being reported out of the conference committee under a rule prohibiting any amendment. Id. at 52. Both chambers passed the bill. A few hours later, the Governor signed the bill into law, and it immediately took effect. [1] Id. at 53, 66, 317.