Sprague, R., Aplts v. Cortes, P.
100 MAP 2016
| Pa. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- A proposed November 2016 constitutional amendment would change the mandatory judicial retirement age; the ballot question wording did not disclose that a retirement age (70) already exists and instead asked whether to "impose" an age, prompting claims of deception.
- Appellants sued Secretary Pedro A. Cortés seeking to enjoin placement of the challenged ballot language; the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania assumed plenary jurisdiction and issued a September 2 per curiam order in which the Justices were evenly divided (3–3), producing no merits decision and maintaining the status quo.
- After the deadlock, Appellants refiled in the Commonwealth Court; that court dismissed the complaint, holding res judicata barred relitigation because the Supreme Court’s prior order was treated as a final adjudication.
- Justice Wecht (joined by Justices Todd and Dougherty) filed an Opinion in Support of Reversal arguing the Supreme Court’s deadlock did not constitute a final merits adjudication and therefore res judicata should not apply.
- Wecht emphasized that res judicata requires a final judgment on the merits, criticized the Commonwealth Court’s reliance on the deadlock as a merits decision, and noted polling and commentary showing the ballot language likely misleads voters.
- Relief sought: reversal of the Commonwealth Court dismissal and remand for merits adjudication on whether the ballot wording violates the Pennsylvania Constitution; Wecht would grant that relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court’s 9/2/2016 per curiam deadlock constituted a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes | The 3–3 deadlock produced no merits judgment; thus no final adjudication occurred and res judicata does not bar refiling | The prior Supreme Court proceedings and opinions amount to a final decision precluding relitigation | Wecht: Deadlock is not a final merits adjudication; res judicata does not apply — reverse and remand |
| Whether appellants may obtain merits review of the ballot-question validity after the prior Supreme Court action | Plaintiffs entitled to merits decision because no court finally decided the constitutional issue | Defendant contends the earlier proceedings foreclose further litigation | Wecht: Plaintiffs retain right to merits adjudication; courts must decide whether ballot wording violates the Constitution |
| Whether the ballot language is misleading such that it undermines constitutional amendment process | Ballot wording omits that retirement age already exists (70) and thus misleads voters into thinking the amendment would create a new requirement | Secretary/Legislature defended the language; some actors initially framed or adopted the language for the general-election ballot | Wecht: He finds the language “patently deceptive” and stresses the need for judicial review (merits not finally decided by prior deadlock) |
| Proper remedy if prior order is not final | Enjoin placement of deceptive language or order judicial review/remand | Maintain current ballot or treat prior process as final | Wecht: Reverse Commonwealth Court and remand for proceedings to resolve merits (possible injunction if merits warrant) |
Key Cases Cited
- Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1995) (res judicata requires a final, valid judgment on the merits)
- County of Berks ex rel. Baldwin v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 678 A.2d 355 (Pa. 1996) (denial of extraordinary relief is not a final merits adjudication and does not preclude later litigation)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1980) (res judicata principles as applied in federal jurisprudence)
- Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U.S. 672 (U.S. 1880) (discussed by parties regarding effect of an evenly divided state court; did not address res judicata)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1803) (judiciary’s duty to say what the law is)