Court Opinion

ID: 9765784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:19:09.071935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:15.680247
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion sustaining the preliminary objections filed by the General Assembly, the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) in response to Count 2 of the petition for review filed in our original jurisdiction by John G. Bergdoll, Gerald C. Grimaud and Matthew R. Battersby (Petitioners) because the plain English statement accompanying the ballot question on confrontation of witnesses is misleading as to the content of the ballot question.
In 2003, the General Assembly directed the Secretary to submit a ballot question to Pennsylvania’s qualified electors in the November 4, 2003 municipal election regarding the amendment of Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. *204That ballot question, which related to the rights of the accused in a criminal prosecution under Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, read: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to provide that a person accused of a crime has the right to be ‘confronted with the witnesses against him,’ instead of the right to ‘meet the witnesses face to face’?” The proposed provision read as follows:
In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to [meet the witnesses face to face] be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and, in prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage; he cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself; nor can he be deprived of his life, liberty or property unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. The use of a suppressed voluntary admission or voluntary confession to impeach the credibility of a person may be permitted and shall not be construed as compelling a person to give evidence against himself. (Underlined language inserts; bracketed language deleted.)
Accompanying the ballot question was the required “Plain English Statement of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania” which stated:
This ballot question proposes to amend the provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution that gives persons accused of a crime the right to “meet the witnesses face to face.” The United States Constitution gives an accused person the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This ballot question would make the language of the Pennsylvania Constitution the same as the language of the United States Constitution.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that laws permitting children to testify in criminal proceedings outside the physical presence of the accused, by means such as videotaped deposition and closed-circuit television, violate the Pennsylvania Constitution because they deny accused persons the right to confront the witnesses against them “face to face.” In contrast, the United States Supreme Court has upheld such laws under the United States Constitution, which guarantees accused persons the right to confront the witnesses against them, but not necessarily the right to confront witnesses “face to face.”

The purpose of this ballot question is to remove from the Pennsylvania Constitution the right of accused persons to confront the witnesses against them “face to face, ” so that the Pennsylvania General Assembly may enact laws or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may adopt rules that permit children to testify in criminal proceedings outside the physical presence of the accused.

The Pennsylvania Constitution would continue to guarantee accused persons the right to confront the witnesses against them. This ballot question is limited in that it would remove from the Pennsylvania Constitution only the right to confront witnesses “face to face.”
The effect of this ballot question would be to remove from the Pennsylvania Constitution the right of accused persons to confront the witnesses against them “face to face” and to make the language of the Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteeing accused persons the right to confront the witnesses against them the same as the language of the United States Constitution.
*205(Emphasis added.)1 Among other things, Petitioners allege in Count 2 of their petition for review that the Attorney General’s plain English statement failed to accurately inform voters of its purpose, limitations and effects because the statement misleadingly implied that the effect of the amendment was limited to changing the manner in which a child could testify. The Secretary, the Attorney General and the General Assembly filed preliminary objections arguing that the claim failed to aver a substantive conflict with the Constitution.
Sustaining the Secretary’s preliminary objection to Count 2 of the petition for review, the majority holds that the statement meets the plain language requirement because it states that the purpose of the amendment was to remove from the Pennsylvania Constitution the right of accused persons to confront the witnesses against them face to face and allow children to testify in criminal proceedings outside the physical presence of the accused.
I dissent from that portion of the decision because I disagree that the Attorney General’s plain English statement complies with Section 201.1 of the Election Code.2 Section 201.1 of the Election Code provides, in relevant part:
[T]he Attorney General shall prepare a statement in plain English which indicates the purpose, limitations and effects of the ballot question on the people of the Commonwealth. The Secretary of the Commonwealth shall include such statement in his publication of a proposed constitutional amendment as required by Article XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
All that is required in the statement is the purpose, limitations and effects of the ballot question. From reading the statement, one should be able to determine what the ballot question asks and its effects.
In this case, rather than making it clear that the amendment takes away from all persons who may have to testify and confront witnesses “face to face,” the Attorney General’s plain English statement gives the impression that the ballot question deals only with whether children acting as witnesses have to confront those being accused “face to face” or whether the children can testify outside their presence. Because the amendment itself does not even mention the word “children” and the ballot question removes from our Constitution the right to confront witnesses in person from everyone, the plain English statement impression that it only removes that requirement to protect children is misleading and is in violation of Section 201.1 of the Election Code.
Accordingly, because I would overrule the Secretary’s preliminary objection to Count 2 of Petitioner’s petition for review, I dissent only from that portion of the majority opinion.
Judge SMITH-RIBNER joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

. The amendment was passed by the electorate at the November 4, 2003 election.

. Section 201.1 of the Election Code, added by the Act of February 19, 1986, P.L. 29, 25 P.S. § 2621.1.