vote requirement in Pennsylvania

2021See id. (discussing Clark v. State Canvassing Bd., 888 P.2d 458, 462 (Nev. 1995) (ballot question violated the separate vote requirement of the Nevada Constitution where two proposed changes, while relating [J-48-2021] - 8 to the subject of gambling, had no “rational linchpin” of interdependence); Lee v. State, 367 P.2d 861, 864 (Utah 1962) (holding that a two-part proposed amendment granting the legislature special powers in the event of a war or other emergency violated the separate vote requirement, which was then part of the Utah Constitution, because the two provisions, though related, we

2021The failure of either of these tests renders a proposed amendment void under the separate vote requirement set forth in Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution. 1Appellants in this matter are Shameekah Moore, Martin Vickless, Kristin June Irwin, and Kelly Williams. [J-48-2021] [MO: Todd, J.] - 3 The first test articulated in Grimaud is a “subject matter test.” The subject matter test requires us to examine whether the changes in a proposed amendment “are sufficiently interrelated to justify their presentation to the electorate in a single [ballot] question.” Id. at 841 (quoting Pa. Prison So

2021In Grimaud v. Commonwealth, 865 A.2d 835 (Pa. 2005), our Supreme Court articulated the governing standard for assessing whether a ballot question violates the separate vote requirement of Article XI, Section 1.

2021However, our Supreme Court has directed that “merely because an amendment may possibly impact other provisions does not mean it violates the separate vote requirement.” Grimaud v. Commonwealth, 865 A.2d 835, 842 (Pa. 2005) (quotation omitted).

2021Grimaud [v. Commonwealth, 806 A.2d 923 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)] at 930.

2005Grimaud , at 930.

2021See id. (discussing Clark v. State Canvassing Bd., 888 P.2d 458, 462 (Nev. 1995) (ballot question violated the separate vote requirement of the Nevada Constitution where two proposed changes, while relating [J-48-2021] - 8 to the subject of gambling, had no “rational linchpin” of interdependence); Lee v. State, 367 P.2d 861, 864 (Utah 1962) (holding that a two-part proposed amendment granting the legislature special powers in the event of a war or other emergency violated the separate vote requirement, which was then part of the Utah Constitution, because the two provisions, though related, we

2021Likewise, as we highlighted previously, see supra note 12, Florida’s Constitution contains no requirement that when two or more amendments are proposed by the legislature they must be voted on separately; thus, the case from the Florida Supreme Court cited in our Grimaud decision, Fine, supra, will not be included in this survey, as it has no relevance. [J-48-2021] - 42 theme, purpose or subject,” but expressly rejecting a requirement of an additional “showing of ‘close’ or ‘functional’ relatedness”); Fugina, supra (Minnesota) (“[P]ropositions that might be submitted separately may be submitte

2021If the proposal would effect two or more changes that are substantive and not closely related, the proposal violates the separate-vote requirement of [the Oregon Constitution], because it would prevent the voters from expressing their opinions as to each proposed change separately.”); Montana Association of Counties v. State by & through Fox, 404 P.3d 733, 742 (Mont. 2017) (“[T]he proper inquiry is whether, if adopted, the proposal would make two or more changes to the Constitution that are substantive and not closely related.”).

2021Such an interpretation would allow the separate-vote requirement to be easily undermined by simple drafting techniques.” Montana Association of Counties, 404 P.3d at 741 .

2021See id. (discussing Clark v. State Canvassing Bd., 888 P.2d 458, 462 (Nev. 1995) (ballot question violated the separate vote requirement of the Nevada Constitution where two proposed changes, while relating [J-48-2021] - 8 to the subject of gambling, had no “rational linchpin” of interdependence); Lee v. State, 367 P.2d 861, 864 (Utah 1962) (holding that a two-part proposed amendment granting the legislature special powers in the event of a war or other emergency violated the separate vote requirement, which was then part of the Utah Constitution, because the two provisions, though related, we

2021XI, § 3; Washington Const. art. 23, § 1; West Virginia Const. art. 14, § 2; Wisconsin Const. art. 12, § 1; and Wyoming Const. art. 20, § 2. 27 These are Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington. 28 As explained previously, see supra note 10, because Utah amended its constitution in 1969 to remove the separate vote requirement from its constitution, we do not include the case of Lee v. State, 367 P.2d 861 (Utah 1962) in this discussion, as it no longer has any viability for comparison purposes.

2021Board of Fund Commissioners v. Holman, 296 S.W.2d 482, 488 (Mo. 1956) (requiring that the changes be “so related that, united, they form in fact but one rounded whole,” in order to be submitted to the voter as one proposition); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Board of Land Commissioners, 982 P.2d 358, 363 (Id. 1999) (determining whether each change is “controlled, modified or qualified” by the other changes, and, if “the matters are ‘incongruous and essentially unrelated’” such that they “do not in any way depend upon one another,” then the amendment does not meet the separate vote requireme

2021We apply a “subject matter test” to determine whether the proposed changes are “sufficiently interrelated,” and further analyze “the ballot question’s substantive [e]ffect on the Constitution” through an examination of its “content, purpose, and effect.” Id. at 841-42 ; see also Pennsylvania Prison Society v. Commonwealth, 776 A.2d 971, 980 (Pa. 2001) (plurality) (noting that ballot question in Bergdoll v. Kane, 731 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 1999), was examined by considering “the content, purpose, and effect of the PAM - 2 proposed amendments”).

2021Board of Fund Commissioners v. Holman, 296 S.W.2d 482, 488 (Mo. 1956) (requiring that the changes be “so related that, united, they form in fact but one rounded whole,” in order to be submitted to the voter as one proposition); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Board of Land Commissioners, 982 P.2d 358, 363 (Id. 1999) (determining whether each change is “controlled, modified or qualified” by the other changes, and, if “the matters are ‘incongruous and essentially unrelated’” such that they “do not in any way depend upon one another,” then the amendment does not meet the separate vote requireme

2021See Cambria, supra (New Jersey) (“Put simply, to meet the separate vote requirement of the New Jersey Constitution, any proposed amendment must not make two or more changes to the constitution unless they are closely related to one another.”); Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 959 P.2d 49, 64 (Or. 1998) (“[T]he proper inquiry is to determine whether, if adopted, the proposal would make two or more changes to the constitution that are substantive and that are not closely related.

2021Board of Fund Commissioners v. Holman, 296 S.W.2d 482, 488 (Mo. 1956) (requiring that the changes be “so related that, united, they form in fact but one rounded whole,” in order to be submitted to the voter as one proposition); Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Board of Land Commissioners, 982 P.2d 358, 363 (Id. 1999) (determining whether each change is “controlled, modified or qualified” by the other changes, and, if “the matters are ‘incongruous and essentially unrelated’” such that they “do not in any way depend upon one another,” then the amendment does not meet the separate vote requireme

2021See Cambria, supra (New Jersey) (“Put simply, to meet the separate vote requirement of the New Jersey Constitution, any proposed amendment must not make two or more changes to the constitution unless they are closely related to one another.”); Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 959 P.2d 49, 64 (Or. 1998) (“[T]he proper inquiry is to determine whether, if adopted, the proposal would make two or more changes to the constitution that are substantive and that are not closely related.