Amending the State Constitution
There are three methods by which the Pennsylvania Constitution can be amended: the “standard” amendment process, the “emergency” amendment process, and the constitutional convention. Each of the three options is extremely difficult and presents overwhelming challenges to amendment advocates, especially when the proposed amendment is highly controversial.
The Pennsylvania Constitution sets forth two of the methods for amendment in Article XI, Section 1.
Absent a major emergency the first of the two methods is to be used. Under this method, both chambers must approve the amendment by majority vote in two successive sessions, and then the electorate must approve the amendment by majority vote.
First legislative approval The amendment may be introduced in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Regardless of which chamber begins the process, both the Senate and House must pass the amendment with a constitutional majority (26 votes in the Senate, 102 in the House).
This vote must take place early enough in the General Assembly’s two-year term to allow subsequent publication of the proposed amendment in at least two newspapers in every county at least three months before the next general election. The purpose of this requirement is to give the voters an opportunity to ascertain the attitude of the candidates for election to the next term of the General Assembly.
Note: as a practical matter this means that the General Assembly must act before it recesses for the summer in June of the second year of a two-year term since publication must occur by early August of that year.
Second legislative approval Once the next two-year term of the General Assembly commences the process is basically repeated. The Senate and House must again pass the amendment in identical form.
Voter approval Once the legislative process is completed, the proposed amendment is placed before the voters in a statewide referendum. The proposal must again be published in at least two newspapers in each of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties at least three months before the general election. If approved by the voters the measure becomes part of the state constitution.
Difficulties of the “standard” amendment process
The difficulties of using this process include:
- The length of time from beginning to end
- The challenge of convincing two successive sessions of the General Assembly to adopt the amendment, and
- The necessity of convincing the voters to approve it in a statewide referendum.
A final point worth noting: the Supreme Court has ruled that the requirements set forth above must be strictly adhered to in order for the amendment process to be valid.
[
Top]
Article XI, Section 1 provides a method for shortening the amendment process “in the event a major emergency threatens or is about to threaten the Commonwealth and if the safety or welfare of the Commonwealth requires prompt amendment” of the Constitution. Obviously this would require extraordinary circumstances, and the legitimacy of the emergency would be subject to legal challenge by opponents of the proposed amendment.
Legislative approval In such an emergency the General Assembly would adopt the amendment by a constitutional two-thirds majority (34 votes in the Senate, 136 in the House) after which the proposal would “promptly” be published in at least two newspapers in each of the 67 counties.
Voter approval The measure would then be submitted to the voters at least one month after being agreed to by the General Assembly. If the emergency amendment is approved by a majority of the voters it becomes part of the Constitution.
The General Assembly could then enact a cap on non-economic damages as allowed in the new constitutional language. The Governor could sign, veto or allow the bill to become law without his signature.
Difficulties of the “emergency” amendment process Utilizing this method to amend the Constitution would be extremely difficult.
- First, the state would have to be facing a genuine emergency of major proportions.
- Second, proponents would have to convince two-thirds of the Senate and House to adopt the amendment—no small task.
- Third, the voters still must be convinced to approve the measure in a statewide referendum.
- Finally, there is a high likelihood that the decision to use the emergency process would be subject to serious legal challenge.
[Top]
Pennsylvania has held five constitutional conventions (in 1776, 1790, 1838, 1874 and 1968). The four most recent conventions were each initiated by an act of the General Assembly. The situation was obviously a bit different in 1776, when the process was initiated by a resolution adopted by the Continental Congress.
The call for a constitutional convention Assuming that the process begins with an Act of the General Assembly there is some debate over whether there must be a statewide referendum to approve the legislature’s call for a constitutional convention. However, as Lieutenant Governor Raymond Broderick wrote in a reference manual for the 1967-68 convention, “there is no question but that the proponents of the referendum are on safer ground.”
Selection of delegates Once the voters have approved the call for a constitutional convention, the next step is the selection of delegates. The mechanism for selecting the delegates is again established by an Act of the General Assembly. In 1967 the legislature named the lieutenant governor and 12 legislative leaders as delegates, and called for 150 additional delegates to be elected by the voters—three from each senatorial district.
Voter approval Once chosen, the delegates assemble and draft the new constitution, which is then submitted to the voters for their approval. It is important to note that the scope of the convention’s authority to amend or rewrite the existing constitution may be limited by the same Act of the General Assembly that creates the convention in the first place. Thus a constitutional convention may be created to deal with a single issue. However, it must also be noted that the 1874 convention exceeded its authority in a number of areas and apparently got away with it.
Difficulties of the constitutional convention Needless to say, advocates of a constitutional convention face almost insurmountable obstacles, not the least of which is the legislature’s fear of creating a process that it cannot control.
For example, it is not impossible to imagine a constitutional convention exceeding its authority and creating a provision imposing term limits on legislators. For this reason it is highly unlikely—absent extraordinary circumstances—that the General Assembly would choose this option for amending the Constitution.
[
Top]
| “Standard” Amendment Process |
“Emergency” Amendment Process |
2003–2004:
House and Senate each pass a Joint Resolution—governor does not sign or veto—by a majority vote (26 votes in the Senate and 102 votes in the House) before June 30, 2004, at the latest. |
2003–2004:
House and Senate each pass a Joint Resolution—governor does not sign or veto—by a two-thirds majority (34 votes in the Senate and 136 votes in the House).
|
2005–2006:
House and Senate each pass language identical to that approved in 2003–2004 before June 30, 2006, by a majority vote. Again, the governor does not sign or veto. Approval could be as early January 2005 to allow publication before the May 2005 primary election. |
2003–2004:
The amendment then appears on the ballot for a voter referendum after publication and one month after legislative approval. A majority vote of approval would be required.
|
2005–2006:
The question appears on the ballot (at either a primary or general election) for a voter referendum and must be approved by a majority vote. |
2003-2004 deadline dates:
» Mid-April for the 2003 primary election
» Late September for the 2003 general election
» Mid-March for the 2004 primary election
» Late September for the 2004 general election
However, the referendum could also be placed on the ballot at a special election on a different day than the regular primary or general election. |
Post Referendum:
The General Assembly could then pass a law enacting a cap on non-economic damages as allowed in the new constitutional language. The governor could sign, veto or allow the bill to become law without his signature. |
Post Referendum:
The General Assembly could then pass a law enacting a cap on non-economic damages as allowed in the new constitutional language. The governor could sign, veto or allow the bill to become law without his signature. |
| Note: If the governor vetoes a bill, a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate is required to override the veto. If the governor does not sign or veto a bill within 10 days it becomes law. |
[
Top]
Compensation laws allowed to General Assembly
Current Language (delete): “…but in no other cases shall the General Assembly limit the amount to be recovered for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to persons or property,….”
Proposed Language (add): “The General Assembly shall not limit the recovery of economic damages for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to persons or property and may by statute limit the recovery of non-economic damages for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to persons or property.”
[
Top]
Last Updated: 8/12/2008