Court Opinion

ID: 9636323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:24:06.459537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:44.177542
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the determination that 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 3133 is unconstitutional. The Commonwealth Court was constitutionally mandated in 1968, Pa. Const. Art. 5, § 4, as a part of the unified judicial system, Pa. Const. Art. 5, § 1. The implementing legislation necessary to create the court, Act of January 6, 1970, 1969 P.L. 434, No. 185, provided a method of gubernatorial appointment of the initial seven judges in a manner guaranteeing minority party representation on the Court. The legislative history of the Act, however, is totally void of any basis, for continued minority party representation. The constitutional provision prescribing the manner of election of judges, Pa. Const. Art. 5 § 13(a) makes no distinction among the statewide courts. I think it is abundantly clear that according to the constitution the manner of election of judges to the Commonwealth Court is to differ in no way from the manner of election of the members of the other courts of this Commonwealth, thus retaining the integrity of a unified judicial system. The *570attempt by the legislature in Section 3133 to carry the minority party representation “guarantee” of the initial appointment over to later elections runs contrary to the constitutional mandates of Art. 5, Sections 1, 4, arid 13, and is an infririgement on the independence of the judiciary.
Without disputing the merits of the plurality’s discussion of the integrity of the judiciary and the irrelevance of party politics to judicial decision making, I find such discussion unnecessary to the decision of this matter.