# Pennsylvania Prison Society v. Commonwealth

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 25, 2001 · 565 Pa. 526

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699604

## Case

- **Full name:** PENNSYLVANIA PRISON SOCIETY; Julia D. Hall; Gregory H. Knight; Fight for Lifers, Inc.; William Goldsby; Joan Porter; Graterfriends, Inc., Joan F. Gauker; Vincent Johnson; Friends Committee to Abolish the Death Penalty, Inc; Kurt Rosenberg; Pennsylvania Abolitionists United Against the Death Penalty, an Unincorporated Association by Terry Rumsey and William Goldsby; Terry Rumsey, Roger Buehl, AM-7936 SCI-Greene; Douglas Hollis, AF-6355 SCI Coal Township, Dianna Hollis, Appellees, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania; Honorable Tom Ridge, Governor; Pennsylvania Board of Pardons; And Honorable Kim Pizzingrilli, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Representative Matthew J. Ryan, as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Senator Robert C. Jubelirer, as President Pro Tempore of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Intervenors, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 25, 2001
- **Citations:** 565 Pa. 526; 776 A.2d 971; 2001 Pa. LEXIS 1585
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Flaherty, Newman, Nig't'o, Nigro, Saylor, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699604

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the separate-vote requirement “acts as a safeguard to ensure that our citizenry is fully informed of the proposed amendments to the Constitution.”
- holding that “the voters should be given free opportunity to modify the fundamental law as may seem to them fit....”
- noting that ballot question in Bergdoll v. Kane, 731 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 1999), was examined by considering “the content, purpose, and effect of the PAM - 2 proposed amendments”

## Opinion text

SAYLOR, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority in holding that the amendments at issue do not violate the proscriptions of Article XI, Section 1, but disassociate myself from the majority’s apparent rejection (made most explicit in its footnote 4) of a subject-matter focus to determine whether alterations are sufficiently interrelated to justify their presentation to the electorate in a single question. 1 See generally Bergdoll v. Kane, 557 Pa. 72, 89 , 731 A.2d 1261, 1263 (1999)(Saylor, J., concurring).
Justice CASTILLE and Justice NEWMAN join this concurring opinion.
. I note that jurisdictions interpreting virtually identical constitutional requirements have employed a single-subject test and examined the interdependence of the proposed constitutional changes in determining the necessity for separate votes. See, e.g., Korte v. Bayless, 199 Ariz. 173 , 16 P.3d 200, 203-05 (2001) (explaining a "common-purpose formulation” to inquire into whether the proposed amendments are sufficiently related to "constitute a consistent and workable whole on the general topic embraced”); Clark v. State Canvassing Bd., 119 N.M. 12 , 888 P.2d 458, 462 (1995) (applying a "rational linchpin” of interdependence test); Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547 , 208 S.E.2d 93, 100 (1974) (inquiring into whether all of the proposed changes "are germane to the accomplishment of a single objective”) (quotations and citations omitted); Fugina v. Donovan, 259 Minn. 35, 104 N.W.2d 911, 914 (1960) (upholding separate propositions that, although they could have been submitted separately, were rationally related to a single purpose, plan, or subject).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9699604. Public record. Not legal advice.