Perzel v. Cortes

870 A.2d 759, 582 Pa. 103, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 655
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 1, 2005
Docket241 MAP 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 870 A.2d 759 (Perzel v. Cortes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Perzel v. Cortes, 870 A.2d 759, 582 Pa. 103, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 655 (Pa. 2005).

Opinion

OPINION

Justice NEWMAN.

We granted a request to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in this matter so that we could consider the validity of a Writ of Election issued by John M. Perzel, Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives (Speaker Perzel) and Samuel H. Smith, Majority Leader of the House of Representatives (Majority Leader Smith) (collectively, “Appellants”) to Pedro A. Cortes, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Secretary). They issued the Writ following the adjournment sine die of the House on November 30, 2004, but prior to the House convening for the 2005-2006 session. Because we determined that the Writ was valid, we issued an Order on December 20, 2004, directing the Secretary to obey the Writ. This Opinion is in support of the Order.

Facts and Procedural History

On December 6, 2004, Representative Kelly Lewis (Representative Lewis) of the 189th Legislative District, which consists of parts of Monroe and Pike Counties, sent a letter to Majority Leader Smith indicating his formal resignation from his position. Appellants issued a Writ of Election to the Secretary and the Boards of Elections of Monroe and Pike Counties on December 7, 2004, setting February 8, 2005, as *106 the date for a special election to fill the vacancy in the 189th Legislative District.

Article II, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, “[wjhenever a vacancy shall occur in either House [of the General Assembly], the presiding officer thereof shall issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy for the remainder of the term.” Section 628 of the Election Code, 25 P.S. § 2778, states in relevant part:

Whenever a vacancy shall occur in either house of the General Assembly whether or not it then be in session, the presiding officer of such house shall, within ten (10) days after the happening of the vacancy, issue a writ of election to the proper county board or boards of election and to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, for a special election to fill said vacancy, which election shall be held at the next ensuing primary, municipal or general election scheduled at least sixty (60) days after the issuance of the writ or such other earlier date which is at least sixty (60) days following the issuance of the writ as the presiding officer may deem appropriate.

25 P.S. § 2778. 1 Rule 1 of the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (January 2003) provides that the Speaker is the presiding officer. Speaker Perzel was elected Speaker for the 2003-2004 Legislative Session. 2 He recognized that an argument might be made that he was no longer Speaker once the 2003-2004 session adjourned, and therefore was not the presiding officer of the House when Representative Lewis resigned. For that reason, both Appellants issued the Writ on December 7, 2004, relying on Section 21.13 of the Act of January 10, 1968, P.L. (1967) 925, as amended, 46 P.S. § 42.121m, which provides, “If any vacancy shall occur during the recess of the Legislature in *107 the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the duties of said office shall be performed by the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.” 3

On December 8, 2004, the Secretary returned the Writ of Election to Appellants based on his conclusion that the Writ was invalid. The Secretary explained that members of the House serve a term of two years beginning December 1 after their election. Accordingly, the term of members elected in the November 2002 General Election expired on November 30, 2004, as did the term of the Speaker elected by those former members. The terms of office of the individuals elected to the House on November 2, 2004 began on December 1, 2004. However, the House has not convened since it adjourned sine die on November 30, 2004. The Secretary concluded that no one, including the House leaders, has been sworn or seated as a member of the House. Until the oath of office is administered to the elected individuals on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, and until those seated members elect their officers, the Secretary opined that neither Appellant could exercise the powers and duties of a Representative or officer of the House.

On December 9, 2004, Judge Bruce F. Batton of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County administered the oath of office to Majority Leader Smith in the hall of the House pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 4 Appellants reissued the Writ the same day. In a letter to the Secretary that accompanied the reissued Writ, Majority Leader Smith recognized that technically the Secretary might be correct that no Speaker had yet been elected for the 2005-2006 term. He informed the Secretary of his swearing in *108 earlier in. the day and reminded him of the aforementioned Section 21.13 of the Act of January 10, 1968, P.L. (1967) 925, as amended, 46 P.S. § 42.121m, which provides, “If any vacancy shall occur during the recess of the Legislature in the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the duties of said office shall be performed by the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.”

The Secretary responded by letter dated December 10, 2004, in which he rejected the reissued Writ, again asserting that there was no presiding officer in the House who had legal authority to issue the Writ. He also disagreed with the relevance of Section 21.13m of the Act of January 10, 1968, P.L. (1967) 925, as amended, 46 P.S. § 42.121m, because it discusses the role of the Majority Leader if there is a vacancy in the office of the Speaker when the House is in recess. He noted that the instant matter does not involve a recess, but instead an adjournment sine die.

On December 13, 2004, Appellants filed a Petition for Review in the Nature of an Action for Declaratory Judgment and in Mandamus in the Commonwealth Court. They also filed an Application for Special and Summary Relief in the Nature of a Declaratory Judgment and Peremptory Mandamus. The following day, they filed an Application for Expedited Extraordinary Relief with this Court, which we granted on December 20,2004. 5 , 6

*109 Discussion

Both Appellants signed the Writs at issue in this matter. At the time that Speaker Perzel signed the Writs, the House was in adjournment, and the individuals elected to serve during the 2005-2006 Legislative Session had not convened to elect a Speaker. Although the House Republican Caucus had unanimously elected Speaker Perzel as its candidate for Speaker, his election was not a fait accompli, because any member of the House who garners sufficient votes may be elected to the office. Accordingly, when Representative Lewis resigned from his position, there was a vacancy in the office of Speaker.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rep. B. Cutler v. L.M. Chapman, Acting Sec'y. of the Com.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
Rep. B. Cutler v. L.M. Chapman
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
Board of Revision of Taxes, City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia
4 A.3d 610 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
870 A.2d 759, 582 Pa. 103, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perzel-v-cortes-pa-2005.