HARRISBURG — Attorneys for the Wolf administration and Democratic lawmakers argued Wednesday that the Commonwealth Court should rule that the General Assembly used illegal procedures in lumping a group of proposed Constitutional amendments together in a single bill passed last summer.
Those proposed amendments include a provision targeting abortion rights, as well as measures that would require voter ID and call for new election audits. The proposal also would change the way the lieutenant governor is selected.
Proposed changes to the state Constitution must be passed by the General Assembly twice in consecutive legislative sessions before they are put before voters.
The reason amendments must be passed twice is so that if voters disagree with a proposed Constitutional change they have an opportunity to vote out lawmakers before they give final approval of a potential ballot question. Because of that, Democrats assert that bundling the amendment questions together doesn’t give voters the opportunity to know exactly where their representatives or senators stand on any individual question.
They also argued that Democrats were harmed because bundling the abortion question with other proposed questions made it more difficult to directly link lawmakers to their vote on the proposed Constitutional change.
Attorneys representing Republicans asserted that the legal challenge is premature and that prior court decisions on similar controversies came after the proposed ballot questions had been approved twice. They asserted that since the measure hasn’t been approved by lawmakers twice, no one can demonstrate an injury justifying action by the court.
The push to get legislation directing the Department of State to place the questions on the ballot has emerged as one of the central points of contention in the power struggle in the state House. Observers have suggested that if Republicans can wrangle control of the state House, even temporarily, they will likely try to use the opportunity to approve legislation to put the Constitutional amendment questions on the ballot.
While Democrats won 102 of the 203 seats up for election in November — three seats are vacant because two members resigned to take other offices and one Democrat is deceased.
That means Republicans will outnumber Democrats in the chamber 101-99 until the special elections to fill those vacancies are held.
House Republican Leader Bryan Cutler, R-Lancaster, had issued a writ to schedule the special election on Feb. 7 for the vacancy created by the death Rep. Tony DeLuca, D-Penn Hills. However, the Department of State rejected his writ, saying it was premature because Mr. Cutler issued it before the end of the 2021-22 legislative session. Then, House Democratic Leader Joanna McClinton issued writs scheduling the special election for all three seats — all of which are Allegheny County — also for Feb. 7.
The other races involve filling seats for U.S. Rep.-elect Summer Lee’s 34th District and the 35th District for Lt. Gov.-elect Austin Davis.
Mr. Cutler then filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction preventing DOS from acting on Ms. McClinton’s writs.
Mr. Cutler's lawsuit argues that DeLuca's death before the new session began Dec. 1 means Democrats “cannot claim to have ever had a majority of 102 living members or more members than the Republican Caucus.”
Mr. Cutler’s lawsuit challenges Ms. McClinton’s authority under the state’s laws and Constitution to issue the three “writs of election.”
First Published: December 14, 2022, 9:57 p.m.
Updated: December 15, 2022, 11:32 a.m.
