synopsis of proposed amendments to PENNSYLVANIA state Constitution

First, there will be, assuming passage again in the 2021 legislative session, four RESOLUTIONS to be voted upon which contain amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution. They will appear no sooner than three months after passage. Ordinarily Resolutions are presented as one ballot question but see how they will be voted upon at the end of this paper.

Resolution 2020-1 amends the constitution to allow the Governor, subject to the consent of his/her party, to select his/her running mate. This resolution eliminates the primary selection process for Lieutenant Governor and has broad bi-partisan support. It is likely to be on the ballot, either in May or November.

Resolution 2020-2 contains two amendments. The first provides for a separate ballot or separate column on a voting machine for voting for judicial retention. When running for retention, a judge is no longer a candidate from a party. This is seen as non-controversial and provides clarity on the ballot  for those who are registered as  NP (non-party affiliated) when voting in the primary.

The second provision amends the constitution to allow absentee voting for any reason, essentially affirming mail in voting, and adds: “A law under this sub-section may not require a qualified elector to physically appear at a designated polling place on the day of election.”  Pennsylvania courts have upheld mail-in voting without this amendment, but considering the turmoil over mail-in voting which has emerged since the November election, I think what was once considered a non-controversial amendment will now be considered to be so and may not make it to the ballot. The legislature might even eliminate mail-in voting.

Resolution 2020-3 This Resolution amends the constitution to establish judicial districts BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY for the election of judges of the Supreme Court, Commonwealth Court, and Superior Court. It eliminates the drawing of Districts “with the advice and consent of the Supreme Court” and eliminates the statewide election of judges to these courts. It essentially puts these elections-districting and the order of elections for the transition to the new system and how the new rules of residency will affect a judge seeking retention-in the hands of the legislature. A bill has already been introduced in the House to move this resolution forward this session. This amendment is seen by most analysts as an assault on the independent judiciary and one which violates the notion of co-equal branches and the separation of powers.

Resolution 2020-4   This Resolution proposes “separate and distinct amendments” (their words not mine) to the constitution.  First: an amendment to the declaration of rights prohibiting “a denial of equality of rights because of race or ethnicity”,

Second: an amendment to the governor’s emergency powers limiting an emergency to 21 days.

Third: an amendment allowing extensions of emergency declarations only with a concurrent resolution (not subject to veto) by the General Assembly. This amendment is seen as greatly restricting the governor’s power to act in an emergency situation,

 The Legislature has backed down on making voters vote for each resolution wholesale. (This is a departure from past practice.) Instead, they are proposing Resolution 2020-1 as one ballot question, Resolution 2020-2 as two ballot questions, Resolution 2020-3 as one ballot question, and Resolution 2020-4 as three ballot questions. (The voters will not be required to vote against the governor by voting for racial equality in RES.4 as was originally proposed and highly criticized by analysts, including me!)

Christine Kellett
Dickinson School of Law at Penn State, retired

January 13 DFA meet-up