Legal Analysis: League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Kathy Boockvar
- Overview of the Case:
- Case Citation: 247 A.3d 1183 (Table), No. 578 M.D. 2019, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- Date Filed: January 7, 2021
- Key Parties: League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw (Petitioners) v. Kathy Boockvar, Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth (Respondent)
- Key Issue: Constitutionality of the proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution (Marsy’s Law) regarding crime victims’ rights.
- Highlights: The court granted in part and denied in part the Petitioners’ application for summary relief, declaring the proposed amendment unconstitutional and the votes cast on it invalid.
- Background and Context of the Case:
- Marsy’s Law aimed to create new constitutional rights for crime victims, known as the Victims’ Rights Amendment.
- The amendment was challenged on the grounds that it violated the single-subject rule and impacted existing constitutional rights.
- The amendment was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and submitted to voters in the November 2019 general election.
- The League of Women Voters filed a Petition for Review seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Legal Issues at Stake:
- Whether the proposed amendment violated Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution by encompassing multiple subjects, thus preventing voters from considering each change separately.
- Whether the ballot question on the proposed amendment provided sufficient information to the electorate.
- The potential impact of the amendment on existing constitutional rights of the accused and other constitutional provisions.
- Legal Strategy of Both Sides:
- Petitioners: Argued that the amendment addressed multiple separate issues, not sufficiently interrelated, and would substantively affect other constitutional rights, thereby requiring separate votes for each change.
- Respondent: Defended the constitutionality of the amendment and its presentation as a single ballot question, arguing that the rights were sufficiently interrelated to be considered as one amendment.
- Result and Why Did the Court Make That Decision:
- The court declared the amendment unconstitutional because it violated the single-subject requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which mandates separate votes for separate amendments.
- The court found that the amendment would substantively affect multiple constitutional rights and was not merely touching other parts of the Constitution implicitly, but rather it had a patent effect on other constitutional provisions.
- The court noted that the amendment would implement sweeping and complex changes, which were too extensive to be made by the process described in Article XI, Section 1.
- The court granted the request for a permanent injunction, preventing the Secretary from tabulating and certifying any votes on the amendment.
- Implications:
- The decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures for amending state constitutions.
- It highlights the court’s role in ensuring that voters can exercise their rights to vote on constitutional changes knowledgeably and separately.
- The case underscores the balance between providing rights to crime victims and preserving the constitutional rights of the accused.