Pa. State Ass'n of Jury Comm'rs v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 18 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 59 MAP 2013,J-69-2013,59 MAP 2013 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF JURY COMMISSIONERS, LARRY A. THOMPSON, PRESIDENT PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF JURY COMMISSIONERS, MARTHA S. SMITH, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF CHESTER COUNTY, MARY JANE DELLAFIORA, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF INDIANA COUNTY, GEORGE RICHARD ZIMMERMAN, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PAMELA L. BISBING, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF MONROE COUNTY, CLINTON A. BONETTI, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF JURY COMMISSIONERS AND DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF BUTLER COUNTY, RICHARD L. WARD, JR., DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, KRISTEN GENSEL, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, JOANNE CISCO OLSZEWSKI, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DONALD LEE DISSINGER, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF PERRY COUNTY, JUDITH L. FISHER, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, SANDRA ODEN KELLNER, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF VENANGO COUNTY, DORETTA K. MELLOTT, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF FULTON COUNTY, GLENN E. FORD, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF FULTON COUNTY, MARJORIE A. WASSMER, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF PIKE COUNTY, GERTRUDE SMITH, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF PIKE COUNTY, JERRY OLSON, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF ELK COUNTY, SHELLEY L. BLYTHE, DULY ELECTED JURY COMMISSIONER OF BEAVER COUNTY, Appellants v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA C/O ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE THOMAS CORBETT, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE CAROL AICHELE, SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE KATHLEEN KANE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE JOSEPH B. SCARNATI, III, ELECTED PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, HONORABLE SAMUEL H. SMITH, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellees COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, Intervenors |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
This direct appeal from an order denying injunctive and declaratory relief by a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court concerns various constitutional challenges to a law recently enacted by the General Assembly known as Act 4 of 2013.1 Specifically, it is alleged that Act 4 of 2013 constitutes (1) a violation of the separation of powers doctrine as embodied within Article V, Sections 1 and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution establishing a unified judicial system supervised by this Court;2 (2) animproper delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;3 and (3) a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.4 The Commonwealth Court, in a unanimous decision, rejected the constitutional challenges, and dismissed the action. After initial review, this Court ordered the parties to present oral argument on the firsttwo issues. Following oral argument, on September 17, 2013, this Court entered judgment and filed a per curiam order affirming the Commonwealth Court's order, indicating "Opinions to follow."5 This Opinion is written in accordance with our per curiam order and fully explains our holding that Act 4 of 2013 is constitutional.
By way of background, on December 15, 2011, the Governor signed into effect House Bill 1644, and it became Act 108 of 2011.6 Act 108 of 2011 sought to revise Section 1805 of The County Code, as codified 16 P.S. § 1805, by revising subsection (b) relating to surplus farm equipment, and adding a subsection (c) to provide procedures for the commissioners of counties of the third through eighth class to hold auction sales of personal property via online and electronic forums. Additionally, Act 108 of 2011 sought to add subsection (f) to Article IV, Section 401 of The County Code, as codified 16 P.S. § 401, and amend Chapter I, Section 102(a) of The County Code, as codified 16 P.S. § 102(a), to authorize the governing bodies of second class A and third through eighth class counties to adopt a resolution abolishing the office of jury commissioner.
Upon the enactment of Act 108 of 2011, the Pennsylvania State Association of Jury Commissioners (the Jury Commissioners Association) and duly elected jury commissioners from Butler, Chester, Indiana, and Washington Counties filed, in theCommonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commonwealth, Governor, and Attorney General, contending that Act 108 of 2011 was unconstitutional as violative of the "single subject rule" of Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,7 the separation of powers doctrine as embodied within Article V, Sections 1 and 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution establishing a unified judicial system supervised by this Court, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution under the void for vagueness doctrine.8 The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (the County Commissioners Association) sought and was granted intervenor status with regard to the original action, and the Governor and Attorney General were then dismissed upon consent of all parties.
After the pleadings in the matter were closed, the Jury Commissioners Association, along with the various duly elected jury commissioners, and the County Commissioners Association filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc, in a 4-3 decision, rejected the constitutional challenges, thus finding in favor of the County Commissioners Association and dismissing the action. Pa. State Ass'n of Jury Comm'rs v. Commonwealth, 53 A.3d 109(Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (en banc), reversed, Pa. State Ass'n of Jury Comm'rs v. Commonwealth, --- Pa. ---, 64 A.3d 611 (2013).
The Jury Commissioners Association and the various duly elected jury commissioners filed a direct appeal to this Court, and upon review, we found that Act 108 of 2011 clearly, palpably, and plainly violated the "single subject rule" of Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, we reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court on this sole basis.9 Pa. State Ass'n of Jury Comm'rs v. Commonwealth, --- Pa. ---, 64 A.3d 611 (2013).
Following our decision, the matter of abolishing the office of jury commissioner was revisited by the General Assembly. Specifically, on April 16, 2013, House Bill 808, Printer's Number 837, passed the state Senate by a vote of 38-12, and on April 24, 2013, it passed the state House of Representatives by a vote of 156-39. On May 6, 2013, the Governor signed the bill into effect, and it became Act 4 of 2013, authorizing the governing bodies of second class A and third through eighth class counties to adopt a resolution abolishing the office of jury commissioner. Act 4 of 2013, indicating it shall take effect immediately, amended Section 401 of The County Code, by addressing subsection (f), which provides the following:
Section 401. Enumeration of Elected Officers.-
***
(f) After review of the procedures in effect within the county to ensure that lists of potential jurors are a representative cross section of the community, the governing body of a county of the second class A orthird through eighth class may adopt, by a majority vote, a resolution abolishing the office of jury commissioner. Upon approval of the resolution, the office of jury commissioner shall expire at the completion of the current jury commissioners' terms of office.
16 P.S. § 401(f).
Upon the enactment of Act 4 of 2013, the Jury Commissioners Association and duly elected jury commissioners from various counties10 (collectively, Appellants) filed, in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, an action for declaratory and injunctive relief naming as respondents the Commonwealth, the Governor, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, and the Pennsylvania Speaker of the House of Representatives, contending that Act 4 of 2013 was unconstitutional in accord with the three rationales set forth supra, pp. 3-4. In due course, the County Commissioners Association sought and was granted intervenor status to oppose Appellants' constitutional challenges to Act 4 of 2013.
To expedite the consideration of the matter, the Commonwealth Court directed all parties to file dispositive motions for summary relief pursuant to Rule 1532(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.11 Sitting in a three-judge panel, the Commonwealth Court unanimously denied Appellants' application for summary relief,but granted Appellees' and Intervenor/Appellee's applications for summary relief. Pa. State Ass'n of Jury Comm'rs v. Commonwealth, No. 247 M.D. 2013, 2013 WL 3929862 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).12 Thus, the Commonwealth Court denied Appellants' request for declaratory and injunctive relief and entered judgment in favor of Appellees and Intervenor/Appellee, thereby dismissing the action. See id.
In rejecting Appellants' contention Act 4 of 2013 violates the separation of powers doctrine or Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Commonwealth Court began with an acknowledgement that Snyder v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 509 Pa. 438, 502 A.2d 1232 (1985) (Flaherty, J., plurality), and Wajert v. State Ethics Comm'n, 491 Pa. 255, 420 A.2d 439 (1980), recognize that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides the Supreme Court with sole authority for the general supervision of the state courts. The Commonwealth Court then turned to an examination of its holding in Olenginski v. County of Luzerne, 24 A.3d 1104 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), appeal denied, 615 Pa. 787, 42 A.3d 1061 (2012), which relied upon this...
To continue reading
Request your trial