Court Opinion

ID: 9634445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:12:42.220426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:10.512814
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority correctly notes that the presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative act and that this Court may not strike down a statute unless it “ ‘clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution.’ ” Yet the majority voids respondents’ declaration for candidacy for retention election. This ruling is incorrect because petitioner has not sustained the burden of establishing that the statute is invalid. Tranter v. Allegheny Co. Authority, 316 Pa. 65, 75, 173 A. 289, 294 (1934), Sharpless v. Mayor, 21 Pa. 147, 164 (1853). I, therefore, must dissent.
In the past this Court has recognized the broad power of the General Assembly to control elections, particularly judicial elections. In McCormick v. Reeder, 171 Pa. 505, 33 A. 67 (1895) a procedure for electing judges to the Superior Court *587was challenged and this Court upheld as constitutional the procedure which permitted each voter to cast a ballot for only six candidates when seven judges were to be elected. In Winston v. Moore, 244 Pa. 447, 91 A. 520 (1914), this Court upheld as constitutional a legislative act which provided that a judicial primary candidate who received a number of votes greater than half of the number of ballots cast in that primary election would be the sole nominee on the November ballot. Likewise, in Wasson v. Woods, 265 Pa. 496, 109 A. 214 (1919) this Court again upheld the sole nominee provision as constitutional. In Wasson, supra, the five candidates receiving the highest number of votes in the primary for the five vacant judgeships on the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County were placed as the sole nominees in the November ballot.
Finally, in Thiemann v. Allen (J-123 and J-124, filed April-, 1979) this same Court upheld the constitutionality of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 3133 (1918) which provides for each party to nominate only two candidates in the primary election and each voter to cast a ballot for only two candidates in the general election even though a total of three judges are to be elected to the Commonwealth Court.
The legislative enactment which we review today does not “clearly, plainly and palpably” violate the Constitution any more than the statute in the aforementioned cases. The majority opinion concludes without justification that “[Ejection refers to the process by which electors determine which person out of the number properly seeking the judicial position shall occupy it.” (At p. 1250 n. 1). Yet, in all of the aforementioned cases this Court has held that the legislature could validly provide for various types of elections in some of which there was no process by which electors chose some persons out of a greater number of persons appearing on the ballot. Likewise, Act No. 1978-257, § 1(b)(3) amending 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 3131 merely provides another type of election in which the electors have the final say.
Act No. 1978-257, § 1(b)(3) authorizes the filing for retention election by a person appointed to the Commonwealth Court who:
*588“(i) shall have held office as an elected judge of a court of common pleas and shall not have been defeated for reelection or retention election;
“(ii) shall hold an appointive term on the Commonwealth Court which when added to his other service as a judge of a court of common pleas and/or the Philadelphia Municipal Court (whether or not continuously or on the same court and whether by election or appointment) shall aggregate at least ten years as of the date of expiration of such appointive term on the Commonwealth Court; and “(iii) shall have been appointed to the Commonwealth Court pursuant to any executive order then in effect relating to the selection and screening of qualified nominees for appointment to the court.”
The majority states that this clearly, palpably, and plainly conflicts with the Constitution because it permits a person never elected to a statewide judicial position to be “elected” through a retention process. I agree that this is exactly what Act. No. 1978-257 accomplishes; however, I can find no constitutional violation.
The majority rewrites art. 5, § 15(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and reads into it requirements that are clearly not there.
“A justice or judge elected under section thirteen (a) . or retained under this section fifteen (b) may file a declaration of candidacy for retention election with the officer of the Commonwealth who under law shall have supervision over elections on or before the first Monday of January of the year preceding the year in which his term of office expires.”
The majority’s reading is not required, necessary or, indeed, desirable. First, the majority refuses to recognize the retention process itself as an election process. That ignores the language of the Constitution which refers to a retention election. Obviously, the voter does express a definite choice when he or she casts a “yes” or “no” ballot. The voter, when he or she casts such a ballot does, in a very real sense, determines “who shall fill a public office.” (At p. 1253).
*589Secondly, the language of Section 15(b) is unambiguous and there is no need to resort to a strained interpretation. Nonetheless, the majority relies upon “implications” and finds that, despite the language of the constitution, being elected to a judicial office under Section 13(a) is not enough, rather one must have been elected in a contested election to the judicial position which he or she now seeks. The majority reasons that since Section 15(b) uses a possessive phrase— “his term of office” then one must possess the office before he or she can be retained in the office. (P. 1252). The majority takes the point one step further and holds that one can possess an office only if elected to that same office. Now, I must disagree. One appointed to office possesses that office as fully and completely for the term of his or her appointment as does one who is elected. One who is appointed to judicial office possesses a “term of office” in the specific language of the Constitution as much as one who is elected. Section 13(b) states:
“The person so appointed shall serve for an initial term ending on the first Monday of January following the next municipal election more than ten months after the vacancy occurs.”
The powers of an appointed judge are the same as an elected judge. The appointed judge does possess that office and I fail to see any rationale for distinguishing that possession from that of an elected judge. The majority’s rationale in this area is not only confusing but it fails woefully short of the type of proof necessary before striking down the presumption of constitutionality.
Thirdly, respondents have already been elected in one contested judicial election under section 13(a) and therefore, respondents do qualify under the Constitutional definition of who may file a declaration of candidacy for retention. Art. 5 § 15(b). Respondent, DiSalle, was elected under Section 13(a) to the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County and was serving this term when appointed to the Commonwealth Court. Although respondent, MacPhail was a retired judge when he received his appointment to the Common*590wealth Court, he too had previously been elected under Section 13(a) to the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County. The reasonable interpretation of the retention election section is that one contested election is all that is required in the career of a judge. There is no reference to the fact that one must be elected to a statewide judicial position in order to be so retained. This Court cannot impose such a requirement of its own accord and then find that Act No. 1978-257 “clearly, palpably and plainly” violates such a judicially created requirement. Voters, statewide, do have recourse in the “yes”-“no” retention election, and have a very real, meaningful basis for their vote since the retention candidate is not an unknown quantity as a judge, regardless of whether the judgeship was statewide or not. Respondents fit all the criteria constitutionally required for a retention election and this Court should not invalidate their candidacy for such.
Finally, the legislative enactment before us today is entirely consistent with the prior enactments by the General Assembly concerning the Commonwealth Court.
Act No. 1978-257 is therefore constitutional and respondents should be permitted to file for retention election.