« Courts - High cost of running for justice in Washington State | Main | Law - Bloomington lawyer intends to challenge new Arizona wine shipping law »

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Courts - Pennsylvania decides midnight payraise suits

From the Dec. 28, 2005 ILB:

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 After viewing those election results, the Pennsylvania General Assembly retreated last month and repealed the pay raise.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, * * * several judges filed suit to restore their pay hikes.
For additional background, see this ILB entry from April 5, 2006 and this one from May 17th.

Now for today's news, via the AP:

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated pay raises for 1,200 elected judges and district judges Thursday, adding fuel to an controversy that has roiled state politics for more than a year.

The court ordered that judges' pay to return to the level it was in November, before a pay-raise law that had been passed in the middle of the night four months earlier was repealed in the wake of widespread public anger.

Howard Bashman of How Appealing, who practices out of Philadelphia, provides this link to the 100-page main opinion.

As I recall, much of the anger of the voters toward the Court was that the Court had for years refused to intervene in what many considered to be legislative abuses in enacting legislation. In this case the "midnight pay raise" was just that -- to quote today's AP story:

It was 2 a.m., just before the General Assembly adjourned for the summer, when the Legislature voted to grant the hefty pay raises to themselves, the governor, cabinet officials and judges.

That sudden and secretive manner and the size of the raises drew a sharp, sustained public response.

Presumably the judges' pay raise was included in the pay raise legislation to insure that the Pennsylvania Court would not be likely to declare the method of enactment unconstitutional, as its own pay raise would fall along with the others' raises if it overturned the legislation.

Ironically, the voters directed their ire in the Novemeber election following the pay raise to the only state-wide officals on the ticket, supreme court justices up for retention. One failed to be retained, another's vote was close. Shortly thereafter, the Pennsylvania legislature, presumably hoping to stem the voters' continued anger, repealed the pay raise bill. However, the voters' reactionhe continued into this year's primary, long-time legislative leaders were tossed out.

Now today the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that the repeal cannot affect the pay raise it received. It concludes its long opinion with this:

Finally, we turn to remedy. We note that this Court did not draft or play any role in the enactment of the legislation that became Act 44. That legislation, passed by the General Assembly and duly signed by the Governor, set the compensation judges were to receive, and in July of 2005 the Judiciary began receiving that compensation, only to have the compensation unconstitutionally reduced by Act 72.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania mandates that the Judiciary shall be compensated as provided by law. To effectuate that constitutional command, we order that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth: (1) shall forthwith calculate judicial compensation in accordance with Act 44, as explained in this Opinion; and (2) shall, upon receipt of vouchers prepared by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, reimburse members of the Judiciary for the unconstitutional diminution in compensation effected by Act 72. It is so ordered.

Some might characterize the Pennslyvania Court here as clueless
__________________
Note: I haven't read the entire opinion yet, but presumably it turns on the provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution that states: "The Justices of Supreme Court and Judges of the Court of Appeals and of the Circuit Courts shall at stated times receive a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." See this ILB entry from Nov. 19, 2005, which compares and contrasts the similar Pennsylvania and Indiana constitutional provisions.

More - See pp. 27-44. The Court holds on p. 44:

In sum, we hold that Act 72 is clearly, palpably, and plainly unconstitutional to the extent that it diminished judicial compensation; Act 72 directly diminished judicial
compensation, and it did so in a fashion which does not implicate the narrow exception provided in Article V, Section 16(a). However, under Section 1925 of the Statutory Construction Act, our finding of this unconstitutional effect does not taint the remainder of Act 72. Thus, we find that the remainder of Act 72’s repeal of Act 44 is valid.
In short, the Pennsylvania Court today found that the General Assembly could repeal its own pay raise, but once enacted it could not touch the judicial payraise included in the same piece of legislation.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 14, 2006 03:46 PM
Posted to Courts in general