Pennsylvania State Ass'n of Jury Commissioners v. Commonwealth
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 219
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Act 108 of 2011 amended the County Code to authorize counties to abolish the office of jury commissioner in certain counties and to expand county commissioners' authority over sales via online auctions.
- The title of Act 108 states it relates to abolishment of the jury commissioner and sales of personal property and surplus farm products, aligning with the amended provisions (Sections 401, 1805(b)) and Section 102(a).
- Act 108 amended Section 401 to permit abolition of the jury commissioner in specified counties, with the office expiring at the end of the current terms and not on years when the office is on the ballot.
- Act 108 also amended Section 1805(b) to expand county commissioners’ authority to sell county property through online or electronic auctions.
- Petitioners (Jury Commissioners Association and affiliates) sought declaratory and injunctive relief; Intervenor County Commissioners Association moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted.
- The court held Act 108 does not violate Article III, Section 3 (single-subject) or other constitutional provisions, and granted the Intervenor’s motion while denying the Jury Commissioners Association’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Act 108 violate Article III, Section 3 (single-subject) of the PA Constitution? | Jury Commissioners Association argues Act 108 groups unrelated subjects. | County Commissioners contend Act 108 has a unifying subject: county commissioners' powers. | No; Act 108 has a germane unifying theme and satisfies single-subject requirements. |
| Does Act 108 violate Article V and the separation of powers? | Jury Commissioners Association claims it intrudes on judicial powers and procedures. | Act 108 does not impermissibly infringe on judiciary; powers remain with the General Assembly and county bodies. | No; Act 108 does not violate separation of powers or Article V supervisory powers. |
| Is Act 108 void for vagueness under due process/fourteenth amendment? | Act 108 lacks a replacement mechanism for jury selection, creating vagueness. | Act 108 includes conditions (jury-pool cross-representation) and allows ordinances to fill vacancies; not vague. | No; reasonable standards exist and the statute provides mechanisms to reconcile with existing Judicial Code. |
| Does Act 108 implicate the due process concerns under vagueness doctrine beyond First Amendment contexts? | Vagueness should invalidate the act as affecting jury selection and process. | Vagueness doctrine does not apply as Act 108 does not criminalize conduct or suppress speech. | No; the act governs county actions and provides safeguards; vagueness doctrine not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2003) (single-subject germane test; over-arching subject limits)
- Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (PAGE; single-subject test; unifying subject gaming regulation)
- Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 602 Pa. 83, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) (single-subject analysis; narrower unifying topic)
- In re Marshall, 363 Pa. 326, 69 A.2d 619 (Pa. 1949) (relevant constitutional supervisory framework)
- Estate of Rochez, 511 Pa. 620, 515 A.2d 899 (Pa. 1986) (limits on broad topic assertions under Article III)
- Payne v. School Dist. of Coudersport Borough, 168 Pa. 386, 31 A.1072 (Pa. 1895) (principle guiding broad vs. narrow subject focus)
- Jefferson Cty. Court Appointed Emp. Ass’n v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 603 Pa. 482, 985 A.2d 697 (Pa. 2009) (separation of powers considerations in administrative matters)
- Olenginski v. County of Luzerne, 24 A.3d 1103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (county officer vs judiciary; delegation concerns)