Jubelirer v. Rendell
| Citation | 953 A.2d 514 |
| Decision Date | 19 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 102 MAP 2006.,102 MAP 2006. |
| Parties | Robert C. JUBELIRER, Senator and President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, and John M. Perzel, Representative and Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Appellants v. Edward G. RENDELL, Governor of Pennsylvania; Robin L. Wiessmann, State Treasurer of Pennsylvania; Michael J. Masch, Secretary of Budget and Administration of Pennsylvania; Estelle Richman, Secretary of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare; Allen D. Biehler, Secretary of Transportation of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; Colonel Jeffrey B. Miller, Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police; Pennsylvania State Police, Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Peter Houghton LeVan, Esq., Mark Alan Aronchick, Esq., Hangley, Aronchick, Segal & Pudlin, P.C., Philadelphia, for Rendell, Ed, et al.
Leonidas Pandeladis, Esq., Harrisburg, for Robin L. Wiessmann.
Deborah Melamut Minkoff, Esq., Cozen O'Connor, Philadelphia, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of PA.
Claude Joseph Hafner, Esq., Public Consulting Group, Inc., Gladys Marie Brown, Esq., PA Senate, Harrisburg, for amicus curiae Robert J. Mellow.
Lisa Whitcomb Clark, Esq., Bahar Shariati, Esq., Duane Morris, L.L.P., for amicus curiae Family Planning Council, et al.
Reizdan B. Moore, Esq., David Vincent Vitale, Esq., PA House of Representatives, Harrisburg, for amicus curiae H. William DeWeese.
Monica L. Rebuck, Esq., Peter Houghton LeVan, Esq., Hangley, Aronchick, Segal & Pudlin, P.C., Andrew S. Gordon, Esq., Harrisburg, for Department of Transportation.
Allen C. Warshaw, Esq., John A. Kane, Esq., PA Department of Public Welfare, for Department of Public Welfare.
James D. Neilson, Esq., Harrisburg, for Michael J. Masch.
Linda J. Shorey, Esq., John P. Krill, Jr., Esq., George A. Bibikos, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Preston, Gates, Ellis, L.L.P., Harrisburg, for Jubelirer, Robert and Perzel, John.
BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., and SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD and McCAFFERY, JJ.
Today we are asked to decide whether Article IV, Section 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ("Section 16")1 permits the Governor, when presented with an appropriation bill, to delete portions of the language defining a specific appropriation without disapproving the funds with which the language is associated. Relying upon this Court's decision in Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Barnett, 199 Pa. 161, 48 A. 976 (1901), the Commonwealth Court held that the Governor does not violate Section 16 by vetoing only the language defining an appropriation. Because we hold that Section 16 does not permit the Governor to disapprove solely of language — as opposed to amounts appropriated — in an appropriation bill, we reverse the Order of the Commonwealth Court to the extent that it upheld the Governor's vetoes of language in Sections 219, 223, and 2010 of the General Appropriation Act of 2005, and we affirm that part of the order that upheld the Governor's veto of language in Section 801 of the Act.
The appropriation bill at issue in this case is the General Appropriation Act of 2005 ("2005 GAA"), Act No. 2005-1-A, which Governor Edward G. Rendell signed into law on July 7, 2005. Upon signing the 2005 GAA, the Governor issued a statement informing the House of Representatives that he had approved the 2005 GAA but with seven exceptions. The first three of these seven exceptions were three appropriations that the Governor vetoed in their entirety. With respect to each of these three appropriations, the Governor stated that he was "withhold[ing][his] approval from the following [or `this'] entire item[.]" Reproduced Record ("R.R.") at 35a, 36a.2
The remaining four provisions of the 2005 GAA that the Governor purported to veto (hereinafter, "Challenged Vetoes") are the subject of this appeal. The first Challenged Veto disapproved the entirety of Section 2010 of the 2005 GAA, which was found in Part XX (entitled "Miscellaneous Provisions for 2005-2006"). Section 2010 provided, in its entirety, as follows:
Section 2010. Motor License Fund limitation.—The Department of Transportation is authorized to make adjustments to construction contracts for highway capital projects involving steel entered into prior to March 1, 2004, where the adjustments are supported by mutual consideration.
Respecting the other three Challenged Vetoes, the Governor stated that he was withholding his approval from "language in" or "language that appears in" the appropriation made in each section, but he left intact the amount of each appropriation. In particular, the Governor purported to veto:
• from Section 219 () a provision prohibiting DPW from expending funds for family planning services in excess of the amounts expended for such services during the 2004-05 fiscal year and subjecting such funds to the same restrictions contained in the appropriation for grants for women's medical services;3 • from Section 223 () a provision requiring a public hearing to be held on thirty days' notice before the closure of any state police barracks;4 and
• from Section 801 () a provision requiring the use of at least $1.5 million of appropriated funds for a pilot project to expand the width of pavement markings from four inches to six inches on limited-access highways.5
On September 27, 2005, then-Senator Robert C. Jubelirer (also then-President Pro Tempore of the Senate) and Representative John M. Perzel (then-Speaker of the House) (collectively, "appellants") filed a petition for review in the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Specifically, appellants asked the Commonwealth Court: (1) to declare that Section 16 does not permit the Governor to disapprove of language — as opposed to amounts appropriated — in an appropriation bill; (2) to declare that the Challenged Vetoes were unconstitutional, null, and void; and (3) to enjoin certain members of the Rendell Administration (collectively, "appellees") from complying with the Challenged Vetoes. In addition to Governor Rendell, appellants named the following as respondents in the petition for review: then-Secretary of the Budget and Administration (now Secretary of the Budget) Michael J. Masch; Secretary of Public Welfare Estelle Richman and DPW; Secretary of Transportation Allen D. Biehler and the Department of Transportation; and State Police Commissioner Colonel Jeffrey B. Miller and the State Police.6 Appellees filed an answer and an application for summary relief on November 10, 2005.
On August 10, 2006, the Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc, issued a published opinion and order unanimously granting summary relief to appellees, upholding all four Challenged Vetoes. Jubelirer v. Rendell, 904 A.2d 1030 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). In construing Section 16 as permitting the Governor to disapprove of language in appropriation bills without disapproving of amounts appropriated, the court relied entirely upon this Court's 1901 decision in Barnett, quoting the following language from our opinion in that case:
But every appropriation, though it be for a single purpose, necessarily presents two considerations almost equally material, namely, the subject and the amount. The subject may be approved on its merits, and yet the amount disapproved, as out of the proportion to the requirements of the case, or as beyond the prudent use of the state's income. The legislature had full control of the appropriation in both its aspects and the plain intent of this section was to give the governor the same control, as to disapproval, over each subject and each amount. A contrary construction would destroy the usefulness of the constitutional provision. If the legislature, by putting purpose, subject, and amount inseparably together, and calling them an "item," can coerce the governor to approve the whole or none, then the old evil is revived which this section was intended to destroy.
Barnett, 48 A. at 978. The above language, the Commonwealth Court determined, "unequivocally interprets our Constitution to grant to the Governor the power to disapprove of either the amount of an appropriation or the purpose for which money is appropriated or both." Jubelirer, 904 A.2d at 1035. As for appellants' contention that Barnett's holding was limited to this Court's conclusion that Section 16 permits the Governor to reduce the amount of an appropriation, the Commonwealth Court simply stated that "[t]he words of the Barnett court quoted above clearly contradict this assertion." Jubelirer, 904 A.2d at 1035. The court then noted that, while appellants relied on Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887 (1991) and Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie, 571 Pa. 375, 812 A.2d 591 (2002), these decisions were "of no help" because they "address general rules of constitutional interpretation." Jubelirer, 904 A.2d at 1035. The court concluded its brief analysis by noting that Article IV, Section 157 permits the General Assembly to restore appropriations disapproved by the Governor and that "this is not only the appropriate, but also the sole remedy available." Id. at 1036.8 President Judge James Gardner Colins authored the court's opinion, which was joined by four judges, while two judges did not participate in the decision.9
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Angeles Roca First Judicial Dist. Phila. Cnty.
...... See Jubelirer v. Rendell , 598 Pa. 16, 953 A.2d 514, 528 (2008). A technical legal term in the Constitution, however, must be given the meaning understood by those ......
-
Villani v. Seibert, 66 MAP 2016
...reflects the views of the ratifying voter." In re Bruno, 627 Pa. 505, 101 A.3d 635, 659 (2014) (quoting Jubelirer v. Rendell, 598 Pa. 16, 953 A.2d 514, 528 (2008) ). In other words, "the constitutional language controls and ‘must be interpreted in its popular sense, as understood by the peo......
-
In re Bruno
...completely conforms to the intent of the framers and which reflects the views of the ratifying voter.” Jubelirer v. Rendell, 598 Pa. 16, 953 A.2d 514, 528 (2008) ; Commonwealth ex rel. Paulinski v. Isaac, 483 Pa. 467, 397 A.2d 760, 766 (1979). Stated otherwise, the constitutional language c......
-
League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Commonwealth
...so, reading the provisions of the Constitution in any "strained or technical manner" is to be avoided. Jubelirer v. Rendell , 598 Pa. 16, 953 A.2d 514, 528 (2008). Consistent therewith, "we must favor a natural reading which avoids contradictions and difficulties in implementation, which co......