upholding a ballot question asking, "Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require a unanimous recommendation of the Board of Pardons before the Governor can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual sentenced in a criminal case to death or life imprisonment, to require only a majority vote of the Senate to approve the Governor’s appointments to the Board, and to substitute a crime victim for an attorney and a corrections expert for a penologist as Board members?”, without referencing the existing requirement that the recommendation be made by only a majority of the Board of Pardons
How later courts described this case
- upholding a ballot question asking, "Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require a unanimous recommendation of the Board of Pardons before the Governor can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual sentenced in a criminal case to death or life imprisonment, to require only a majority vote of the Senate to approve the Governor’s appointments to the Board, and to substitute a crime victim for an attorney and a corrections expert for a penologist as Board members?”, without referencing the existing requirement that the recommendation be made by only a majority of the Board of Pardons
- 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the ballot question violated the separate vote requirement of Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. I am compelled to dissent, however, because I do not believe that this constitutional violation should be excused on the basis-that the second amendment, eliminating the language in Article IV, Section 9 that required two-thirds of the Senate to consent to the Governor’s Board appointments, did not actually modify the Senate’s power. Regardless of whether or not the amendment actually modified the Senate’s power, the ballot question at issue proposed multiple amendments to the electorate and such a practice clearly violates Article XI, Section l. 1
. As this Court stated in Bergdoll v. Kane, 557 Pa. 72 , 731 A.2d 1261, 1262 (1999), “[t]he Constitution is specific in providing a complete and detailed process for the amendment of that document .... [and] [nothing short of literal compliance with this mandate will suffice." 557 Pa. at 87 , 731 A.2d at 1270 . Moreover, the constitutional requirement that amendments be voted upon separately is integral to insuring that voters have an adequate opportunity to express their will concerning modifications to the fundamental law of our Commonwealth. See Commonwealth ex rel. v. Beamish, 309 Pa. 510 , 164 A. 615 (1932); Pennsylvania Prison Society v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 727 A.2d 632, 634-35 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999).