Big question
OK, so which question do you think is clearer to understand?
1. “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?”
2. “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges, and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?”
Despite the objections of some Pennsylvania Democrats, the second question will appear on ballots across the commonwealth in the Nov. 8 general election.
The referendum has been the subject of an intense legal battle for the past year. It went all the way to the state’s Supreme Court, which was deadlocked 3-3 on the issue, meaning the challenge to the second question was rejected, allowing it to appear on the fall ballot.
The controversy began after the state Legislature passed a constitutional amendment in two consecutive sessions as required by law. The amendment extends the retirement age for justices and judges from 70 to 75.
As part of the amendment process, it has to be approved by voters in a statewide referendum. Wording for the referendum was developed by state officials, and it was put on the ballot for the primary election last spring. That was the first question listed above. However, Republican leaders in the state Legislature complained about the wording, saying it was too confusing. They came up with their own wording, which turned into the second question above. However, state officials said it was too late to change the referendum so the original question remained on the ballot despite cautions that the results wouldn’t matter. A number of commonwealth residents cast their ballots on the referendum anyway, and it passed by a slim margin of 50.98 percent to 49.02 percent.
The revamped referendum was set to appear on the fall ballot, but it was then challenged in court by former state Supreme Court Justices Ronald D. Castille and Stephen Zappala Sr. and Philadelphia attorney Richard A. Sprague, all Democrats. They claimed the new wording failed to mention the retirement age was being extended from 70 to 75 and was designed to trick voters into approving it.
There was also talk that Republicans were trying to get the amendment passed so that Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, a Republican who turns 70 in December, would be able to remain on the bench. Democrats outnumber Republicans on the bench by a 5-2 margin.
While it’s not clear if Republicans were trying to make things easier for voters or protecting their own interests, there’s no doubt that the first referendum was about as clear as mud. Unfortunately, the second referendum isn’t much better.
Lawmakers should have been able to find a simple way to ask voters if they want to extend the retirement age of justices and judges from 70 to 75. It’s also inexcusable that the referendum was originally proposed for the primary election, not giving independent voters and others a say on the issue.
Overall, the controversy serves once again as a painful reminder of how the state Legislature pretty much screws up everything it touches. What should have been a straightforward question became a convoluted mess with Pennsylvania voters left to try and make sense of it all. We can only hope that with all the controversy about the ruling that voters will come to understand what’s at stake and will be able to make an informed decision on the matter. No thanks to our state legislators, the voice of the people might finally be heard on this important issue.