« Ind. Decisions - More on: Judge allows takeover of state center to proceed | Main | Ind. Decisions - Judge Hamilton denies motions to reconsider in House prayer case »

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Courts - More on judges retention vote in Pennsylvania - pay raise question to go to Supreme Court

Here is the background: The Pennsylvania judicial retention vote in November turned on a "midnight pay raise" passed by the Pennsylvania legislature that included raises for the judges. The result was one Supreme Court justice being turned out of office last month via the 10-year "yes or no" retention ballot. After viewing those election results, the Pennsylvania General Assembly retreated last month and repealed the pay raise. There was speculation that a judge might sue and sure enough, as reported in this ILB entry from Dec. 6th, several judges filed suit to restore their pay hikes. See also this entry from Nov. 19th.

"Pa. Supreme Court takes up pay-raise lawsuits" is the headline to an AP story dated Dec. 27th via PennLive.com. Some quotes:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the pay raise law that passed last summer — and was repealed last month — was constitutional, and whether state and county judges should get the additional salary anyway.

The court on Thursday said it would hear two cases — a challenge by political activist Gene Stilp that had been dismissed as moot by Commonwealth Court, and a Commonwealth Court lawsuit by a judge seeking to reinstate the higher judicial salaries.

The order indicating the court will take the cases, in which Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy did not participate, said the justices will review the propriety of how the Legislature passed the law giving pay raises to officials in all three branches of state government.

The court said it wants to consider whether it is legal for lawmakers to collect their own raises immediately in the form of "unvouchered expenses," rather than wait until their next election, as the state constitution requires.

The case also will examine whether the law ran afoul of requirements in the state constitution that laws reflect a bill's original purpose, that legislation be put before a committee before it goes before the entire Legislature, and that bills must pertain to a single subject and be considered on three separate days.

The justices also will decide whether the pay-raise repeal violated the state constitution's requirement that judges' pay not be diminished "during their terms of office, unless by law applying generally to all salaried officers of the Commonwealth."

The court also said it would consider whether the pay-raise repeal was "nonseverable," meaning that if they throw out a portion of it the whole law could be invalidated, restoring all pay raises. * * *

The July 7 pay-raise law, passed in the dead of night without debate or public input, increased the salaries of more than 1,300 judges, lawmakers and senior executive branch officials. All judges — from district court to the Supreme Court — got pay raises of 11 to 15 percent, and state legislators increased their own pay by up to 54 percent.

Particularly interesting to watch will be these issues:Both relate directly to the doctrine of separation of powers.

Are the requirements set out under the first bullet-point procedural or substantive? Or are some clearly procedural, such as the requirement that a bill be read on three separate days, and others arguably substantive, such as the requirement that the bill be confined to one subject. Court have generally held that a legislative body is the judge of its own procedures, under the doctrine of separation of powers.

The second bullet-point is discussed in this Nov. 19th ILB entry, which includes a comparison of the Indiana and Pennsylvania constitutional prohibitions against reducing judges' salaries.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 28, 2005 03:39 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts