*1
v. ALLEN, O., Sеcretary of the Commonwealth D. of Ethel D. Mete, Pennsylvania, of the Bureau and Louis C. Commissioner Legislations Common Elections, for the of Commissions Respondents, Pennsylvania, wealth of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae. Republican of State Committee CRAIG, Judge Court of the Commonwealth David W. Petitioner,
Pennsylvania, OF Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT COMMONWEALTH STATE, Allen, O., Secretary of the Commonwealth D. D. Ethel Mete, Pennsylvania, Commissioner and Louis C. Legislations Elections,
Bureau of Commissions Pennsylvania, Respondent, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Republican Amicus Curiae. State Committee Pennsylvania. Supreme 13, 1979. Argued March May Decided *2 Balaban,
Thomas R. Harrisburg, for Thiemann. J.
Gaylen Byker, Philadelphia, for amicus curiae. Morris, Burton D. Harrisburg, Craig. for Biester, Jr., Gen., Edwаrd G. Robert E. Nor Atty. Kelly, Watkins, man Gen., J. Deputy Attys. respondents. EAGEN, J., NIX, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, Before C. and LARSEN, MANDERINO and JJ.
ORDER PER CURIAM. NOW, WIT, 1979,42 Pa. day
AND TO 3rd of April, THIS Secretary C.S.A. is ruled constitutional. Commonwealth Commission- Pennsylvania er Elections, of the Bureau of and Legislations Commissions notify County Commonwealth are directed to Boards of Election the Commonwealth and throughout every that, other party to notice primary entitled election political each party nominate two candidates may that, the office of judge of the Commonwealth primary 1979and 1979, each elector vote for two or candidates for the offices to be filled. is granted
Leave who filed nomination any person *3 papers for office of of the Commonwealth judge to 10, 1979, withdraw and p. said 5:00 m. on papers by April the Secretary accept of the Commonwealth is directed to any such withdrawals within the stated period.
Opinions to follow. J., NIX, dissents and would hold that 42 Pa. C.S.A. 3133 (1978) is unconstitutional.
LARSEN, J., dissents.
OPINION THE OF COURT EAGEN, Chief Justice.
Pursuant to 42 Pa. 726 (1978), C.S.A. assumed extraordinary jurisdiction petitions of the above captioned for review filed in the Commonwealth Oral argument Court. was presented and, by petitioners, respondents leave Court, Amicus Curiae. The presented substantive issues involve the proper (1978) of 42 Pa. 3133 application C.S.A.
434 of 1979 and the elections primary1 municipal2
to the of that statute. constitutionality (1978) provides: 3133 C.S.A. § Commonwealth more of the judges “Whenever two or 3131(c) (relating to to pursuant to be elected Court are terms) the same regular at judicial selection of officers than: vote for no more election, qualified each elector shall elected, if be judges one-half the number even; or be elected is the total number to of the constituting majority number smallest elected, number total be if total judges number of elected odd. votes, up having “The number highest elected, shall be elected.” the total number to be judges elected to the Common- The total number of to be 3131(c)(1978) wealth Court to 42 Pa. pursuant C.S.A. § Shapp, is three. Abraham v. municipal election See February and order dated case, Respondent, Dkt. 1979. cited No. E.D. Misc. Commonwealth, filing Secrеtary following (1978), cited to 42 Pa. pursuant order and C.S.A. § that each county political notified the boards of election the three two candidates for party to nominate to be filled offices of the Commonwealth Court for two municipal election that each elector was vote to that response In candidates in election. Thiemann, petition notification, Dennis E. filed petitioner, of 42 Pa. C.S.A. constitutionality for review challenging the Attor- Secretary, the advice of upon *4 General, her and notified the ney interpretation then revised Code, Pennsylvania P.L. 1. The Election Act of June I, seq., seq. 25 P.S. §§ § -] et P.S. 2601 et §§ [hereinafter: 2602(r) “any “primary held defines a at P.S. as election” purpose nominating public . for offices for the candidates at voted for an election.” 2602(j) “municipal as the at 25 P.S. § 2. A election” defined years” constitutionally as in mandated election held “odd-numbered opposed “general in “even-numbered election” which held years.” 2602(h). 25 P.S. § major political parties of the two chairperson State of each her of 42 Pa. interpretation Commonwealth that revised would in each elector C.S.A. result being permitted to vote for three persons primary each political with three candidates. This party nominating notification did not alter the earlier directive Secretary’s that election each could vote for no municipal elector more than three offices. The two candidates to fill the Secretary boards of elec- ready notify county stands tion of the interpretation, revised but has refrained from Petitioner, doing so outcome action. pending the of this David W. Craig, judge of the Commonwealth Court who filed petitions, has nomination then filed a petition seeking review alternative viz. each rulings, party may that nominate three and each primary candidates elector vote for three may municipal candidates in the election if the statute is declared unconstitutional рarty each may nominate two candidates vote may and each elector two candidates in the election if the statute is upheld. Amicus Curiae the statute is constitu- argues that tional; candidates; and, that each may nominate two party each elector vote for two candidates in the munici- pal election.
At the outset we are to construe 42 required C.S.A. 3133 unambiguous clear and language thereof mandates an which allows interpretation each elector to vote persons for two in the 1979 and each primary elector to vote 1979 municipal for two candidates in the election. 1921(a) C.S.A. (Supp. 1978-79) provides that the
“object of interpretation and construction statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assem- bly,” (b) provides: the words of the statute and free from are clear
“[w]hen all the letter of to be ambiguity, disregarded it is not under the pretext pursuing spirit.” its Clearly, an elector limits C.S.A. § voting for two when three the Common-
436 to 42 pursuant Pa. C.S.A.
wealth are “to be elected 3131(c) ... at the same election.” § the term
The
would confine
Secretary’s interpretation
hence,
and,
result
“election” to the
42
to the
Pa. C.S.A.
inapplicable
primary.
statute being
materia
3131(c)
pari
must
read
3133 and
be
§
§
Code, 25
2601 et
with the
Election
P.S.
provisions
§§
.
or
things
.
.
because each
to
same
seq.,
“relate[s]
Pa. C.S.A.
things.”
to
same class of
Reihart,
v.
1932(a)
1978-79);
of York
(Supp.
City
§
are
Furthermore, when statutes
(1977).
materia,
if
together,
possi
must “be construed
pari
they
1978-79);
ble,
statute,”
1932(b) (Supp.
as one
Pa. C.S.A. §
530, 372
Co., 472 Pa.
Electric
Philadelphia
Commonwealth
construed, if
be
(1977),
“[e]very
A.2d 815
statute [must]
provisions.”
its
Pa. C.S.A.
possible,
effect to all
give
Reihart,
1921(a)
supra;
of York v.
1978-79); City
(Supp.
§
LTD., 25 Pa.Cmwlth.
Neshaminy
Auto Villa
Appeal
pal, special primary Hence, (1978)includes 42 Pa. C.S.A. 3133 “election” under specify. it election because does not primary otherwise to an election arguеs
The the statute refers Secretary hence, and, apply not which are “to elected” does be not are process judges elections because primary elected, candidates, citing rather are nominated as 2602(r). technically plausi- argument only P.S. ble.
First, of 42 part term “to in the first be-elected” used limit to be appear C.S.A. 3133 does not term had the intended Clearly, Legislature “election.” election,” easily it “municipal limit the could term at 25 have term defined already done so since the latter This, not do. 2602(j). Legislature P.S. did Second, the last sentence of Pa. C.S.A. 3133 éleeted, not but does ultimately indicates those who shall be limit the first sentencе.
Third, were we to accept position, we Secretary’s would, matter, as a practical compelled to conclude the *6 Legislature has abolished impliedly straight party voting as provided for at 25 2963(f) 3007(b).3 P.S. and There is no §§ indication in 42 Pa. 3133 C.S.A. such result any § intended, was and we must effect to all give legislative pronouncements if possible, 1 Pa. 1922(2) C.S.A. (Supp. 1978-79), and find an implied repealer if the only statutes are irreconcilable. 1 Pa. 1936 (Supp. C.S.A. and §§ Reihart, of York v. 1978-79); City supra; Appeal Yerger, 460 Pa. 333 A.2d Our interpretation recon- ciles the statutes by allowing for both limited voting and straight party voting. Hence, give we effect to both provi- sions and do not find an implied repealer.
Thus, we conclude 42 Pa. C.S.A. is clear and unambiguous by and its terms applies to the as primary, well as the municipal, election. Our interpretation is fortified a study of limited history voting in the Common- wealth.
The primary process election determines the candidates of each party for the municipal general or election. 25 P.S. 2602(k), 2602(r); 1 Pa. §§ C.S.A. 1991 (Supp. 1978-79). when Historically, limited voting a applied, whether party, through the primary process or through some other means,4 nominated only as many candidates as an elector say practical 3. We theoretically paper as a matter because ballots and might prepared way machines in such a to reflect straight party that, party three using tickets for each so one of the three, straight only an elector could vote a ticket and still choose two of the three judge party’s candidates for Commonwealth Court on a A, example, B, Z, ticket. For by party if and C were nominated party B, C, ballot 1 for Z could include A 2-B ballot and and ballot absurd, 3-A and C. But we believe such a result would be and, hence, interpret 42 Pa. C.S.A. this manner legislative would 1922(1) (Supp. violate the mandate of 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1978-79). Also, legislative authority no exists to allow for three straight party party. different tickets for each See Musmanno v. Lawrence, (Dauphin 1935) (the sitting Pa.D & C. 93 court as what Court). is now the Commonwealth primary process merely statutorily provided proce- parties dure replaced which choose nominees which other meth- election. municipal for in the or general was allowed vote Lawrence, at 99-100. The General Musmanno supra this it adopted was when Assembly practice aware defer- considerable (1978), must afford C.S.A. § 1921(c)(7) (Supp. 1 Pa. ence to that awareness. C.S.A. each the number of candidates 1978-79). historically Since circumstances political nominated under such party an elector could vote for limited to number election, must have Legislature or general municipal light In intended limited apply primary. this voting, Legislature historical to limited approach did not intend enacting (1978) surely C.S.A. § than primary allow the nomination of more candidates in each general elector could vote for minimum, from histori- election.. At a had such deviation *7 intended, cal not believe the practice Legislature been we do an would in such uncertain attempted have deviation manner. 1973; it
Also, governed part an election was held in 3, 6, 1970, 434, (1969) P.L. by January the Act § 2, amended, 29, 1972, 1724, 371 1 and P.L. No. December §§ substantially Act is 211.3(i) 1978-79); 17 P.S. (Supp. § and, 1973 (1978); 42 identical Pa. C.S.A. 3133 § in which precise election was conducted manner (1978). Surely, now 42 3133 reenact- interpret Pa. C.S.A. § Legislature provision ment the samе substantially same intent conduct elections in the 1978 indicates an 1921(c)(7) (Supp. 1 manner as in 1973. Pa. C.S.A. See § 1978-79). statutory provisions provid the constitutional and
Finally,
commissioners
are similar
ing
county
for limited
have
implemented
Pa. C.S.A.
been
§
42 Pa. C.S.A.
interpret
the same manner as we now
§
14,
many
See Pa. Const. art.
years.
§
1909)
(1968);
(amended
1968);
Const. art.
(repealed
conventions, caucuses,
popular
governed
ods such as
vote
Moore,
appointed
by party
officials
selected
Winston v.
or
rules.
(1914).
real
that the same two
will receive all
possibility”5
persons
hence,
and,
nominations
the names of
will
only
persons
two
appear on the
election
when three offices
municipal
ballot
are to be filled. While we
this
acknowledge
possibility
exists, we must conclude this legislative oversight does not
an
compel
interpretation different from the clear words of
Moreover,
statute.
this
will not interfere
interpretation
with the 1979 municipal
determining
the three
who
are to fill the judicial
If the same
positions.
nominations,
individuals win all
the elector is free to reject
one
both of the nominees and to “write in”
the name
another or the
and,
names of other persons,
process,
this
the third office can be fillеd in
election.6 Cf.
Woods,
Wasson
v.
Initially, we note that may not declare a “[c]ourts *8 statute unconstitutional ‘unless it clearly, palpably ” plainly violates the Constitution.’ [Emphasis original.] Tosto v. 1, Penn. Nurs. Home Loan 16, 460 Pa. 331 Agcy., 198, A.2d (1975) 205 quoting 263, 411 Daly Hemphill, Pa. 271, 835, possibility judicial
5. This exists because candidates file for by party parties. nominations their own and оther 25 P.S. § process 6. The wisdom of this is not a matter with which we need ourselves; legislative possibility concern that is a concern. The anyone presents greater problem no elector would “write-in” no than any if no elector voted for of a multitude of candidates for the same though appeared office even names on the ballot. has voting Petitioner, Thiemann, concedes limited integral process of the election historically part an been he such a More concedes the particularly, Commonwealth. by is when mandated permissible method 5, (1874) (mandating in Pa. Const. art. Constitution as § justice Supreme of the limited for office vоting Legisla mandated 1968) and when repealed Court— 1895, 24, Act as in the of June ture certain circumstances judges for voting limited (mandating P.L. No. § McCor ex rel. Superior Court). See Commonwealth Reeder, A. 67 mick v. [Hereinafter: pro argues impliedly But he the Constitution McCormick]. on in an positions hibits limited con (1) that the Commonwealth Court. Petitioner reasons: filled must, indeed stitutionally created offices may, for in the provided when utilizing elections limited (repealed 16 (1873) in Pa. Const. art. Constitution as (2) that, statutorily case a statewide court 1968); in the created, the method has discretion choose Legislature McCormick; see but selection, voting, including limited that, in created court such constitutionally the case of Court, where no provision as Commonwealth voting, Legislature Constitution mandates limited Hence, prohibited mandating voting. from limited impliedly here ruling inapposite our in McCormick is petitioner urges was created statutorily because that case office instantly constitutionally the office created. no such McCormick makes agree.
With this we do not distinction. Pa. Const. Superior pursuant
The Court was created restored 5, 1 (1874) (repealed pertinent part art. 1968—in (1968)) provided which the General as Const. art. Assembly authority to establish other courts. with such created selecting judges statutorily method art. courts not Const. governed by (amеnded provision 1968—similar restored repealed 1965— Pa. Const. which “All (1968)) provided: . shall be elected electors qualified *9 ” respective . they preside districts over which are to . . statewide, because Superior Court was to serve not in Hence, districts. in McCormick, supra, Pa. at A. at we Pa. 1(1874) (amended 1909) Const. art. said (renumbered 6, 1 “All (1966)), provided: art. which officers whose is not for in provided selection this constitution shall be appointed law,” elected or be gov directed may by erned the We that, method selection. did not then reason since the could Legislature provided have for the election, by appointment selected or an election involving limited a method of really appointment by electorate which satisfied the mandate of Pa. art. Const. 1 (1874). did Nor we reason that the term constitutional Pa. within Const. from differed used term as in other of the Constitution portions because of the choice given between methods selection the Legislature Const. art. Had we so, done support McCormickcould be used to the distinction petitioner this, advances. But we did not do.
We said:
“Without regard legislature what the have done might to fill the offices created the establishment of the Court, Superior might whether or not have they might made the office are appointive, questions all these now them; unimportant рass we opinion upon no court established; the office is made elective to be filled by general elected at candidates election.” McCormick, 33 A. at we supra, Clearly, at viewed whether, the issue in an election McCormick as when is required constitutionally either statutorily pursuant a legislative choice of alternatives allowed the Constitu- tion, the Legislature as the will of representative of the people, Sharpless (1853), Mayor Philadelphia, election, mandate limited in an to this we responded essence, In that the affirmatively. reasoned Legislature chose process Constitution *10 12, (1874)7 art. fill that of Pa. Const. specifiсally § was not a voting
the involved and that limited judgeships the of an right limitation on constitutionally impermissible elector reasoned participate Finally, election. 5, voting Pa. art. limited mandating Const. § the the Court and justice Supreme elections for office of of other applicable to offices provisions similar constitutional the maxim unius expressio did not warrant of application Hence, clearly exclusio est McCormick stands alterius.8 that, required by the where election is proposition a statute, constitutionally a choosing between by statute Constitution, alternatives, Legisla or the by allowable voting specific ture limited may impose in its discretion instances. compel of 1968 do not provisions Constitution analysis
either a different or result. 13(a)(1968) the election of Pa. Const. art. mandates judges, Shapp, supra, see Abraham v. Commonwealth Court and, between an explained, distinguish as no reason exists to held held an election pursuant provision that pursuant to a choice allowed Constitution legislative an that matter (1874), as with Pa. art. Const. reasoning Petitioner’s purely by election mandated statute. (1874), that the deletion in 1968 of Pa. Const. art. for the providing for limited in elections office justice Court, an an shows intent create Supreme is implied prohibition against predicated upon limited shown, when But, his view of as has been McCormick. repeal McCormick is Const. analyzed properly, an intention to leave the method indicates distinguish 1§ 7. did not in Pa. Const. art. We term “election” Constitution, from the use of that term elsewhere in the is, say if an we did not different criteria are used to determine requirement requirement is a the source election statutory met where Constitution, pursuant choice mandate allowed requirement man than where the source a constitutional date. Indeed, joined by opinion dissenting Mr. Justice Williams filed a majori- expressly disagreed Mr. Justice he with the Sterrett in which ty as to this. election under Pa. 13(a)(1968) Const. art. to the discre tion of the i. e. it Legislature, indicates an intention to remove the mandate Court, constitutional as to the Supreme and the method of election may constitutionally include limited voting. Given the language McCormickspecifical ly indicating we were dealing with a chosen legislatively election as allowed (1874) and, Const. art. 1§ hence, with an election Constitution, within the terms of the and given our ruling existed, that no implied prohibition well as the dissenting opinion on precisely point, delegates to the 1967-68 Constitutional Convention must have known only an express prohibition could remove the *11 legislative discretion expressly recognized McCormickand could hardly be deеmed to have implied intended an prohibi tion by repealing 5, Pa. Const. art. (1874). Certainly, § had such intended, been McCormick would at least have compelled greater clarity.9
To the extent petitioner’s argument implied for an prohi bition is based on the reasoning that Pa. Const. art. 13(a)(1968)requires § an election and limited inter voting feres with the rights elector, of an reject McCormickclearly ed such reasoning. To the extent is petitioner’s position based upon 13(a)(1968) Const. art. mandating an § election, no implied prohibition can arise from this provision because an election involving limited satisfies the voting provision’s mandate. Limited voting election was hеld an in McCormick to be an adequate satisfying method of a. statutorily mandated election and the election was constitu tional in scope because the statute merely chose the election process allowed Pa. Const. (1874). art. No reason has been advanced to between the distinguish term election in Pa. Const. and in Pa. Const. art. 13(a), and we know of none. provision The former re quired a process of election once the legislative choice was made, McCormick, and the latter of requires process elec- 9. We Pennsylvania have examined the Debates Constitutional nothing Convention of 1967-68 and have found to еvidence the intent by petitioner delegates, any portion attributed to the nor has brought support debates been to our attention to such a view. instance, process satisfies
tion. In each limited the mandate.
Petitioner, Thiemann, that, since candi- argues cross-file, purpose see 25 may dates P.S. that not “diminishfed], limited is if eliminated” we should down 42 Pa. strike C.S.A. § statute purpose But reason. concedes petitioner it; but encourage is not to minority representation, insure is doubt, without even if the effectiveness diminished and to some cross-filing, purpose statute does have a e., minority extent i. it purpose, encourages advances that rel. v. Jen- ex Teller representation. Cf. Commonwealth nings, argues justifica- no
Finally, petitioner absolutely there the Com- tion in limited having voting “applicable only argument; on this monwealth Court.” We shall not dwell it to jurisdiction suffice Commonwealth say have Legislature differs from other courts and the subject matter area minority determined a voice in the elsewhere. than jurisdiction important court’s more heretofore, we previously have For reasons stated issued the following: 1979, NOW, WIT, April, this day
AND TO 3rd Secretary C.S.A. 3133 is ruled constitutional. *12 and the Commission- Pennsylvania Commonwealth of Elections, Legislations er of the and Bureau of Commissions County the are to the notify of Commonwealth directed every and throughout Boards оf Election the Commonwealth of that, the election primary other to notice party entitled for 1979, each two candidates political party nominate may that, in the office of of the Commonwealth Court and judge of the primary election of and candidates each vote for two or elector for the filled. offices to be is who filed nomination any
Leave granted person for of the Commonwealth papers judge the office of 10, 1979,and April withdraw p. said 5:00 m. on papers directed to accept the of Commonwealth is Secretary the any such within the stated period. withdrawals J.,
NIX, J., LARSEN, dissenting opinion filed a in which joins.
LARSEN, J., dissenting opinion. filed a NIX, Justice, dissenting.
In
erred in its
my judgment,
has
majority
grievously
compatible
conclusion that 42 Pa.C.S.A. section 3133
with the
of
provisions of
Constitution
this Common
am, therefore,
I
register
wealth.
dissent
compelled
my
to set
and
forth
reasons for
my
reaching
contrary position.
Even accepting the
of
presumption
constitutionality
accorded,
are to
statutory enactments
Parker v. Chil
dren’s
Hospital
Philadelphia,
of
483 Pa.
A.2d 932
;
(1978)
Commonwealth,
Hosiery v.
469 Pa.
A.2d 919
(1976); Singer
v.
464 Pa.
Sheppard,
(1975);
v.
Daly
Hemphill,
(1963);
191 A.2d
reasonable
interpretation
unambiguous
the clear and
lan
guage
Constitution,
proper
viewed in its
historical
setting, leads inexorably to the conclusion that the Constitu
prohibits
tiоn
judicial
limited
officers.1
Article 5 of
Pennsylvania
provides
Constitution
selecting
three methods of
justices,
justices
peace:
13(a),
pursuant
Section
retention
15(b)
election under Section
under
appointment
Section
13(b).2
al.,
Abraham Shapp
et
447
Regardless
judicial
of
wisdom of
of
particular
the
a
method
selection,
it
question
the critical
raised here is whether
is in
accordance
the
of this
organic
with
law
Commonwealth.
".
13(a)
Section
.
.
provides
shall be elected ...
the electors of the Common-
wealth.
.
.”
“shall”
generally
.
The term
has
been
Hi-Acres, Inc.,
Fishkin
interpreted
being
v.
mandatory.
309,
U.,
462 Pa.
No is precious more in a free that of than country having choice the of the those who make laws under which, citizens, as good they must live. Other rights, basic, even the right most are if illusory vote is undermined. Sanders, v.
Wesberry 17, at at supra S.Ct. The scheme of limited voting proposed in Section represents an unwarranted and of unauthorized erosion franchise and cannot be countenanced. right to vote freely the candidate choice of one’s of essence a democratic society, any restrictions
on that right strike of at the heart representative govern- ment. And right suffrage of can be denied aby debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by free exer- wholly prohibiting the franchise, cise of the (emphasis added).
Reynolds Sims, v. U.S. 84 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d (1964).
The result reached by in this is even majority appeal more inexplicable light this Court’s recent decision in Abraham v. Shapp, supra. In Abraham supra, v. Shapp, process. Shapp, (1978);
tion
Barbieri v.
Colden,
Berardocco v.
The relies our decision majority heavily 505, Reeder, A. rel. McCormick analysis its I believe that a proper conclusion. support the support it fails to only that decision indicates that not with In rather in conflict it. majority’s position but vote, Reeder, voting limited by a five two a upheld newly to the then created judges scheme for the election of the fact that to that decision was Superior Court. Crucial (and not had been created Superior legislatively the Court mandated) and the Constitution at that that constitutionally for the elec provided voting had for limited time expressly 5, section Supreme justices. tion of Court Pa.Const. art. the clear in that Court (1874). expressing The was opinion there a for limited persuaded provision was that since was statewide for mandated voting only constitutionally time, be viеwed as court at that the Constitution could not court of prohibiting legislatively limited created the Reeder jurisdiction. Moreover, statewide the result of 12, 1 which Court was further art. section supported by selection is not provided provided “All officers whose as appointed, may this constitution shall be elected 6, added). art. by present directed law.” See (emphasis for- The was section Reeder Court satisfied 1, 12, art. was else in controlling nothing mer section since result. prevented former Constitution such a The situation the 1968 is entirely under Amendment dif- constitutionally ferent. Commonwealth Court was mandated, art. simply section was not creature of legislative fiаt. The former for limited provision Supreme justices was deleted in the 1968 Constitution- Reeder, al Amendment. presented Unlike situation judges conceded the selection of to fill majority, seats scrutiny 13(a) under governed by Section Constitution, (the counterpart thus art. section 1 of for- 1) mer art. support section is not available as for the majority’s significant, result reached in this Most appeal. ignored Reeder majority, is that the Court was able to avoid a determination as to whether the language requiring qualified “election electors” was incompatible with a scheme of limited Under 1874 Constitu- voting. this requirement tion to the expressly limited election of district judges оf the common section pleas, thus the Reeder Court could it was legitimately say not applicable the election of of a court of statewide jurisdiction, Reeder, Com. ex rel. McCormick v. at supra *16 A. at 68. Here crucial, a resolution of this question yet majority attempted has to skirt the issue. stated,
For the reasons I am of the view section 3183 provides a scheme selection that not in accord with the 13(a) mandate of section Constitution and, therefore, should not be permitted to stand.
LARSEN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.
LARSEN, Justice, dissenting. I join in Mr. Nix’s Justice The Act is dissenting opinion. unconstitutional; clearly in a free citizens democracy ought and should be every able to vote for each and one of their (now “alleged”) elected officials. Sadly, has majority decided otherwise.