COLINS, President Judge.
Presently before this Court are cross motions for judgment on the pleadings filed respectively by the petitioners, the Pennsylvania Prison Society, Julia D. Hall and others (collectively, the Prison Society) and by the respondents, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Ridge, and others (collectively, the Commonwealth).
The parties dispute the legality of changes to Article IV, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which changes were approved by the electorate on November 4, 1997. The ballot question presented to the voters on that day was posed as follows:
Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require a unanimous recommendation of the Board of Pardons before the Governor can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual sentenced in a criminal case to death or life imprisonment, to require only a majority vote of the Senate to approve the Governor’s appointments to the Board, and to substitute a crime victim for an attorney and a corrections expert for a penologist as Board members?
As required by Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the proposed amendments were approved by two successive sessions of the General Assembly and were published three months before the November 1997 general election. The parties’ primary dispute concerns whether the changes to Article IV, Section 9, which were posed in a single ballot question, comprise one amendment or several amendments. Their secondary dispute, which is closely related to the first, concerns whether the Attorney General’s “plain English statement,” which was published with the ballot question, was sufficient.1 An additional dispute concerns whether the changes, as implemented, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.2
A motion for judgment on the pleadings in this court’s original jurisdiction is in the nature of a demurrer; all of the opposing party’s allegations are viewed as true and only those facts which have been specifically admitted by him may be considered against him. The court may only consider the pleadings themselves and any documents properly attached thereto.
Bergdoll v. Kane, 694 A.2d 1156, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997), appeal pending, No. 55 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997. “[A] vote of the people cannot validate and Constitutionalize anything which violates a provision of the Constitution, and ... this question or issue of Constitutionality is justiciable after the voters have adopted such a provision....” Stander v. Kelley, 433 Pa. 406, 412-13, 250 A.2d 474, 477 (1969) (emphasis omitted).
The primary dispute is whether the changes to Article IV, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution constitute one amendment or several amendments. If they constitute several amendments, the ballot question submitting those amendments to the voters violated Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that “[wjhen two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately.” The Prison Society asserts that the ballot question, which proposed four amendments to Article IV, Section 9 but which actually contained five amendments, should have been submit[634]*634ted to the voters as five questions to be approved separately. In contrast, the Commonwealth asserts that the amendment constituted a single question despite the fact that it contained several parts, because all of the parts pertained to one provision of the Constitution and addressed one topic, the Board of Pardons.
“Where, as here, we must decide between two interpretations of a constitutional provision, we must favor a natural reading which avoids contradictions and difficulties in implementation, which completely conforms to the intent of the framers and which reflects the views of the ratifying voter.” Commonwealth ex rel. Paulinski v. Isaac, 483 Pa. 467, 477, 397 A.2d 760, 766, cert. denied, 442 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 2841, 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). “A constitution is not to receive a technical or strained construction, but rather the words should be interpreted in their popular, natural and ordinary meaning.” Commonwealth v. Harmon, 469 Pa. 490, 494-95, 366 A.2d 895, 897 (1976). “[W]here the language used is unteehnical, it is to be construed as the people who voted for [it] probably understood it[.]” O’Connor v. Armstrong, 299 Pa. 390, 396, 149 A. 655, 657 (1930). Amendment is defined as “an alteration proposed or effected by” the process of amending. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 68 (1993). Amend is defined as follows: “to alter (as a motion, bill, or law [or constitution]) formally by modification, deletion, or addition.” Id. Considering these principles and definitions, we have no doubt that the word amendment in Article XI, Section 1 means a single change to the Constitution.
The process of amending the Constitution described in Article XI, Section 1 has been described by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as “a concentration of all the power of the people in establishing organic law for the commonwealth.... It is not lawmaking, which is a distinct and separate function, but it is a specific exercise of the power of a people to make its constitution.” Commonwealth ex rel. v. Griest, 196 Pa. 396, 404, 46 A. 505, 506 (1900).
The Constitution is the fundamental law of our Commonwealth, and in matters relating to alterations or changes in its provisions, the courts must exercise the most rigid care to preserve to the people the right assured to them by that instrument. No method of amendment can be tolerated which does not provide the electorate adequate opportunity to be fully advised of proposed changes.
Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Beamish, 309 Pa. 510, 515, 164 A. 615, 616-17 (1932). Not only must the electorate be fully advised of the proposed changes to the Constitution, but also all of the Constitution’s technical requirements for amendment must be observed.3 Amendments to the Constitution should not be taken lightly or made easily. The process described in Article XI, Section 1 is reserved for simple, straightforward changes to the Constitution, easily described in a ballot question and easily understood by the voters. This process should not be used to circumvent a constitutional convention, the process for making complex changes to the Constitution, as we believe was done in this case. When multiple changes with important ramifications for our system of criminal justice are proposed, as here, the electorate cannot be adequately informed of the changes and their effects by a single ballot question and a brief, plain English statement.
We agree with the Supreme Court of Oregon that the requirement that amendments be voted on separately “serves as a safeguard that is fundamental to the concept of a constitution.” Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or. 250, 276, 959 P.2d 49, 63 (1998). As our Supreme Court stated in Griest, amending the Constitution is not lawmaking, i.e., the making of legislation.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COLINS, President Judge.
Presently before this Court are cross motions for judgment on the pleadings filed respectively by the petitioners, the Pennsylvania Prison Society, Julia D. Hall and others (collectively, the Prison Society) and by the respondents, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Ridge, and others (collectively, the Commonwealth).
The parties dispute the legality of changes to Article IV, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which changes were approved by the electorate on November 4, 1997. The ballot question presented to the voters on that day was posed as follows:
Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require a unanimous recommendation of the Board of Pardons before the Governor can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual sentenced in a criminal case to death or life imprisonment, to require only a majority vote of the Senate to approve the Governor’s appointments to the Board, and to substitute a crime victim for an attorney and a corrections expert for a penologist as Board members?
As required by Article XI, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the proposed amendments were approved by two successive sessions of the General Assembly and were published three months before the November 1997 general election. The parties’ primary dispute concerns whether the changes to Article IV, Section 9, which were posed in a single ballot question, comprise one amendment or several amendments. Their secondary dispute, which is closely related to the first, concerns whether the Attorney General’s “plain English statement,” which was published with the ballot question, was sufficient.1 An additional dispute concerns whether the changes, as implemented, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.2
A motion for judgment on the pleadings in this court’s original jurisdiction is in the nature of a demurrer; all of the opposing party’s allegations are viewed as true and only those facts which have been specifically admitted by him may be considered against him. The court may only consider the pleadings themselves and any documents properly attached thereto.
Bergdoll v. Kane, 694 A.2d 1156, 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth.1997), appeal pending, No. 55 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997. “[A] vote of the people cannot validate and Constitutionalize anything which violates a provision of the Constitution, and ... this question or issue of Constitutionality is justiciable after the voters have adopted such a provision....” Stander v. Kelley, 433 Pa. 406, 412-13, 250 A.2d 474, 477 (1969) (emphasis omitted).
The primary dispute is whether the changes to Article IV, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution constitute one amendment or several amendments. If they constitute several amendments, the ballot question submitting those amendments to the voters violated Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that “[wjhen two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately.” The Prison Society asserts that the ballot question, which proposed four amendments to Article IV, Section 9 but which actually contained five amendments, should have been submit[634]*634ted to the voters as five questions to be approved separately. In contrast, the Commonwealth asserts that the amendment constituted a single question despite the fact that it contained several parts, because all of the parts pertained to one provision of the Constitution and addressed one topic, the Board of Pardons.
“Where, as here, we must decide between two interpretations of a constitutional provision, we must favor a natural reading which avoids contradictions and difficulties in implementation, which completely conforms to the intent of the framers and which reflects the views of the ratifying voter.” Commonwealth ex rel. Paulinski v. Isaac, 483 Pa. 467, 477, 397 A.2d 760, 766, cert. denied, 442 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 2841, 61 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). “A constitution is not to receive a technical or strained construction, but rather the words should be interpreted in their popular, natural and ordinary meaning.” Commonwealth v. Harmon, 469 Pa. 490, 494-95, 366 A.2d 895, 897 (1976). “[W]here the language used is unteehnical, it is to be construed as the people who voted for [it] probably understood it[.]” O’Connor v. Armstrong, 299 Pa. 390, 396, 149 A. 655, 657 (1930). Amendment is defined as “an alteration proposed or effected by” the process of amending. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 68 (1993). Amend is defined as follows: “to alter (as a motion, bill, or law [or constitution]) formally by modification, deletion, or addition.” Id. Considering these principles and definitions, we have no doubt that the word amendment in Article XI, Section 1 means a single change to the Constitution.
The process of amending the Constitution described in Article XI, Section 1 has been described by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as “a concentration of all the power of the people in establishing organic law for the commonwealth.... It is not lawmaking, which is a distinct and separate function, but it is a specific exercise of the power of a people to make its constitution.” Commonwealth ex rel. v. Griest, 196 Pa. 396, 404, 46 A. 505, 506 (1900).
The Constitution is the fundamental law of our Commonwealth, and in matters relating to alterations or changes in its provisions, the courts must exercise the most rigid care to preserve to the people the right assured to them by that instrument. No method of amendment can be tolerated which does not provide the electorate adequate opportunity to be fully advised of proposed changes.
Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Beamish, 309 Pa. 510, 515, 164 A. 615, 616-17 (1932). Not only must the electorate be fully advised of the proposed changes to the Constitution, but also all of the Constitution’s technical requirements for amendment must be observed.3 Amendments to the Constitution should not be taken lightly or made easily. The process described in Article XI, Section 1 is reserved for simple, straightforward changes to the Constitution, easily described in a ballot question and easily understood by the voters. This process should not be used to circumvent a constitutional convention, the process for making complex changes to the Constitution, as we believe was done in this case. When multiple changes with important ramifications for our system of criminal justice are proposed, as here, the electorate cannot be adequately informed of the changes and their effects by a single ballot question and a brief, plain English statement.
We agree with the Supreme Court of Oregon that the requirement that amendments be voted on separately “serves as a safeguard that is fundamental to the concept of a constitution.” Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or. 250, 276, 959 P.2d 49, 63 (1998). As our Supreme Court stated in Griest, amending the Constitution is not lawmaking, i.e., the making of legislation. It is the changing of our organic law, i.e., “constitutionmaking.” The voters must be able to express their will as to each substantive constitutional change separately, especially if these changes are [635]*635not so interrelated that they must be made together. If multiple changes are so interrelated that they must be made together, as a unit, then they are too complex to be made by the process described in Article XI, Section 1. Those changes should be made by constitutional convention, where they can be more adequately debated and understood.
The ballot question presented to the voters on November 4, 1997, contained four changes to the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Prison Society asserts that it neglected to describe a fifth change. The first change involved the Board of Pardon’s (Board) recommendation regarding a prisoner sentenced to life or death. For those prisoners, the Board’s recommendation to the Governor as to pardon or commutation was changed to be by a unanimous vote of the Board rather than by a majority vote. The second change involved the vote of the Senate to confirm the Governor’s nominees to the Board. The required vote was changed to be by majority vote of the Senate rather than by majority or two-thirds vote as specified by law. The third change involved the substitution of a crime victim for the attorney member of the Board, and the fourth change involved the substitution of a corrections expert for the penologist member of the Board. The fifth change was the deletion of the words “and shall be recognized leaders in their fields,” which phrase described the three members appointed by the Governor.
The Commonwealth argues that the deletion of this phrase “was simply an editorial change necessitated by the other changes in the composition of the Board[,]” because it not longer made sense as a qualifier. (Commonwealth brief, p. 16.) We agree, however, with the Prison Society, that the ballot question did not adequately describe the changes to Article IV, Section 9. What the United States Supreme Court wrote about the U.S. Constitution applies equally to the Pennsylvania Constitution: “Nothing new can be put into the Constitution except through the amendment process. Nothing old can be taken out without the same process.” Ull-mann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 428, 76 S.Ct. 497,100 L.Ed. 511 (1956).
In summary, we hold that the process by which Article IV, Section 9 was amended violated the Article XI, Section 1 requirement that “two or more amendments ... be voted upon separately.” The single ballot question presented to the voters on November 4, 1997 described four amendments and neglected to describe a fifth. If these amendments were so interrelated that they needed to be adopted as a unit, they should have been submitted to a constitutional convention. Otherwise, each modification, deletion, or addition should have been submitted to the voters as a separate question.
The parties’ secondary dispute, which is closely related to their primary dispute, involves the adequacy of the Attorney General’s plain English statement. Section 201.1 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2621.1, requires that when a proposed constitutional amendment is published, it be accompanied by “a statement in plain English [that is prepared by the Attorney General and] which indicates the purpose, limitations and effects of the ballot question on the people of the Commonwealth.” While we acknowledge that “the duties of the Attorney General do not include providing an in depth illustration of how a proposed amendment to the constitution may affect the public[,]”4 the Attorney General is required to comply with Section 201.1 of the Election Code by describing the purpose, limitations and effects of the ballot question. He did not do so in this case.
We agree with the Prison Society that the plain English statement confuses the purpose of the changes with a description of the actual changes (though it omits the deletion of the phrase “and shall be recognized leaders in their fields”). Additionally, the statement only cursorily describes the effects and limitations. The Attorney General attempts to satisfy the requirements for the plain English statement by restating the proposed amendments, but this is not enough. The electorate must be informed of the ramifications of the amendments in real life 'terms [636]*636and of the reasons why the General Assembly believes the amendments are necessary. The plain English statement’s only indication of the purposes, limitations, and effects of the amendments is the following:
The effect of the ballot question would be to make it more difficult for an individual sentenced to death or life imprisonment to obtain a pardon or commutation of sentence, to ease to process for Senate approval of the Governor’s appointment to the Board of Pardons, and to ensure that crime victims are represented on the Board.
This statement, however, cannot serve to satisfy all three requirements of the plain English statement, and it gives the voters no explanation as to why the changes were needed or as to how the changes might affect other parts of the Constitution, e.g., Article IV, Section 2 (duties of the governor). We hold that the statement is inadequate to satisfy the requirements of Section 201.1 of the Election Code, 25, P.S. § 2621.1.
The additional dispute between the parties concerns whether the amendments to Article IV, Section 9 offend the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. We will not address this issue, because jurisdiction over the federal claims was retained by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania when it remanded the state claims to this Court. Although the amended complaint did contain a claim based on the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, this question was not briefed by either party and has been waived. Harvilla v. Delcamp, 521 Pa. 21, 555 A.2d 763 (1989).
Accordingly, the November 4,1997 vote on the ballot question is null and void, as the single ballot question contained five amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution. The motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by petitioners, the Pennsylvania Prison Society et al is granted. The motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the respondents, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al is denied.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of March 1999, the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Pennsylvania Prison Society et al is GRANTED.
The motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al is DENIED.