PA Against Gambling Expansion Fund v. Com.
| Decision Date | 22 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 229 MM 2004.,229 MM 2004. |
| Citation | 583 Pa. 275,877 A.2d 383 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIANS AGAINST GAMBLING EXPANSION FUND, INC. et al., Petitioners, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Alan J. Davis, Esq., Philadelphia, for amicus curiae Pennsylvania Division, Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc., et al.
Dennis Edward Boyle, Esq., for amicus curiae The Family Research Council, et al.
Robert A. Graci, Esq., Alan C. Kohler, Esq., Alan C. Kohler, Esq., Wormleysburg, for Greenwood Racing, Inc. and Magna Entertainment Corp.
James J. West, Esq., Randall Luke Wenger, Esq., Robert Richard Long, Jr., Esq., Leonard Gilbert Brown, III, Esq., Harrisburg, for Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, et al.
Gerald J. Pappert, Esq., Thomas W. Corbett, Calvin R. Koons, Esq., Amanda L. Smith, Esq., John G. French, Esq., Harrisburg, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Linda J. Shorey, Esq., for Senate of Pennsylvania.
Gregory Eugene Dunlap, Esq., Peter Grattan Glenn, Esq., Harrisburg, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Edward G. Rendell, Governor.
Arlene Fickler, Esq., Lawrence T. Hoyle, Jr., Esq., Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.
Thomas Walter Dymek, Esq., C. Clark Hodgson, Jr., Esq., Philadelphia, for House of Representatives of Pennsylvania.
James Francis Tierney, IV, Esq., Pittsburgh, for Minority Leader of the Pennsylvania Senate.
Jonathan F. Bloom, Esq., Philadelphia, for Minority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.
In this matter, we are asked to resolve, inter alia, numerous facial constitutional challenges to the regularity of the procedures employed by the General Assembly in enacting Act 2004-71, The Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (the "Gaming Act" or the "Act"). 4 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. These challenges were brought via a Petition in the Nature of a Complaint Seeking Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief (the "Complaint") filed by five members of the General Assembly, seven organizations, a Lancaster County Commissioner, and five named individuals (collectively, "Petitioners")1 against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, certain Commonwealth officials, and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (collectively, "Respondents").2 Certain Respondents filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the Complaint contending, inter alia, that the General Assembly did not violate our Constitution in the passage of the Gaming Act. For the reasons that follow, we sustain the Gaming Act, with the exception of certain collateral provisions which can be stricken in light of the Gaming Act's severability provision.3
At the outset, it is important to make clear that we are neither passing on the wisdom of the substantive provisions of this Act nor on whether gaming in general is in the best interests of the citizens of our Commonwealth. These decisions are for the General Assembly. We are only considering the discrete legal issues that have been raised for our review primarily regarding the constitutionality of the procedure by which the General Assembly passed this piece of legislation.
Within this realm, we proceed to consider the facts, certain threshold issues, the arguments of the parties, and finally the resolution of the constitutional issues before us. Although the standard for entertaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer would ordinarily constitute the sole criterion for review, here the parties have agreed, pursuant to Section 1904, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1904, to proceed to final merits resolution without creating a factual record. Therefore, relief will be granted to Petitioners only where it is warranted solely from the face of the title and content of the bill as enrolled, together with the judicially noticeable legislative history. See City of Philadelphia et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566, 580 (2003)
. In all other instances, relief will be denied.
The Complaint, as well as the brief of Petitioners, sets forth the material facts regarding House Bill 2330 of 2004 ("HB 2330") and the process by which that bill became the Gaming Act. Specifically, HB 2330 was introduced on February 3, 2004. It was titled "An Act Providing for the Duties of the Pennsylvania State Police Regarding Criminal History Background Reports for Persons Participating in Harness or Horse Racing." At this point in time, the bill dealt exclusively with the Pennsylvania State Police providing support to the State Harness and Horse Racing Commissions by performing criminal history checks and the verification of fingerprints of applicants for licensure under the Race Horse Industry Reform Act of 1981. It was one page in length. (H.B. 2330 Printer's No. 3251).
Thereafter, the bill went through three considerations in the House and two considerations in the Senate.4 In the last consideration in the Senate on Thursday, July 1, 2004, the content of the bill was amended. Additionally, the bill's title was changed to express the multiple amendments made to the bill. These amendments were extensive, increasing the length of the bill from one page to 145 pages which included seven chapters and 86 sections. The bill as amended included the creation of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board ("Gaming Control Board" or "Board"), the issuance of gambling licenses authorizing the creation of a variety of slot machine casinos, the generation and distribution of revenues from the licenses, the creation of numerous funds including the Gaming Fund, the Pennsylvania Horse Race Fund, the Gambling and Economic Development and Tourism Fund, the Property Tax Relief Fund as well as a Compulsive and Problem Gambling Treatment Fund. Additionally, the amended bill contained a chapter regarding administration and enforcement and provided for exclusive jurisdiction in our Court regarding disputes over the issuance of licenses and challenges to the Gaming Act.
On Saturday, July 3, 2004, the bill as amended was submitted to the House for a vote on a committed basis; the amended bill was passed and was signed in the House. The next day, on Sunday, July 4, 2004, the bill was signed in the Senate. On Monday, July 5, 2004, Governor Edward Rendell signed the bill into law as Act 71 of 2004.
Approximately five months later, on December 10, 2004, Petitioners filed their Complaint in which they alleged that the Gaming Act is unconstitutional since it was passed in violation of Article III, Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and is an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Gaming Control Board. Certain Respondents filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer contending that the enactment of the Gaming Act did not violate our Constitution. The Gaming Control Board filed an answer to the Complaint, as well as an application for summary relief pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1532(b), in essence, raising the same issues as were raised by the other Respondents in their preliminary objections.
Petitioners moved to expedite resolution of this matter, and Respondents agreed with Petitioners' request for an expedited procedure. Our Court, on February 11, 2005, directed our Prothonotary to order an expedited briefing schedule, and oral arguments were held on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Prior to considering the merits of the legal issues before us, we must address two threshold matters. First, we will determine our jurisdiction to entertain this challenge and second, the standing of certain parties.
With respect to jurisdiction, we do not stand in our customary posture as an appellate court. Rather, in this matter, the General Assembly, through the Gaming Act, has vested our Court with original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any challenge to the constitutionality of the Gaming Act. Specifically, Section 1904 of the Gaming Act states:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear any challenge to or to render a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of this part. The Supreme Court is authorized to take such action as it deems appropriate, consistent with the Supreme Court retaining jurisdiction over such a matter, to find facts or to expedite a final judgment in connection with such a challenge or request for declaratory relief.
Although we stand in a unique posture, all parties agree that jurisdiction by our Court over Petitioners' Complaint is proper.5 Based upon Section 1904 of the Gaming Act, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over this matter to resolve Petitioners' challenges and request for declaratory judgment.
838 A.2d at 579 n. 8 ().6
Having resolved the threshold issues, we now turn to the legal issues before us. Since the Complaint is based on challenges to the constitutionality of the statute, we must begin by considering the standard by which we resolve constitutional challenges to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Baker
...persuasion upon one who challenges the constitutionality of a statute. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., 583 Pa. 275, 292, 877 A.2d 383, 393 (2005).”). Recidivist statutes, which have been adopted in all fifty states, are no......
-
Brooks v. Ewing Cole, Inc.
...of Pa. v. Commonwealth , 510 Pa. 158, 507 A.2d 323, 331 (1986), abrogated on other grounds , Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth , 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383 (2005) ). The Family Court distinguishes the other cases upon which the Commonwealth Court relied bec......
-
Nevadans for Prop. Rights v. Sec'Y of State, 47825.
...... Hawaii's ban on voting for write-in candidates against arguments that the ban violated the First and Fourteenth ... bill to cure single-subject defect); PA Against Gambling Expansion Fund v. Com., 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383, 403 ......
-
Public Citizen v. Clerk, U.S. Dist. Court
...an exception where the facts are agreed upon), abrogated in part on other grounds, Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania., 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383, 408-09 (2005). Other state courts will more broadly allow the enrolled bill to be rebutted by "clear......
-
Commonwealth Court Nullifies Two Key Provisions Of Act 13
...operator submissions. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund v. Commonwealth, 583 PA. 275, 877 A.2d 383 (2005) (PAGE), the majority ruled that the existence of general goals contained in other provisions of Act 13 was insufficient to provide ad......
-
Slots in the city: a critical look at the balance of decision-making power in gaming legislation.
...ANN. [section][section] 1202(b)(12), 1304(b) (West 2008). (181.) Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. (182.) Title 4, section 1506 of the Pennsylania Code in its original form read as follows: The conduct of gaming as permitted under this p......