ROBERT W. ZECH, JR. JAMES L. WALSH LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE BUREAU ROOM 641 MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120-0033 PHONE: 717-787-4223 * FAX: 717-783:2306 October 9, 2010 ‘The Honorable Joseph Scarati President Pro Tempore 292 Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dear Mr. Scarnati: In response to your letter dated October 5, 2010, enclosed is the Bureau’s opinion on your inquiry. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Director RWZ/ldb EnclosureCommonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau October 6, 2010 LEGAL OPINION This opinion is issued to the requestor and the requestor’s staff for individual use. The Legislative Reference Bureau issues only advisory opinions and does not issue rulings or binding legal opinions. Roert W. Ze, Lp Direct SUBJECT: Alteration-of-Purpose and Multiple-Subject Concerns on Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No. 2232 (2009) TO Honorable Joseph Scarnati President Pro Tempore Senate FROM: Vincent C. DeLiberato, ax,Vaset Oh hltuhe Senior Drafting Attorney barbara ty bane Drafting Attorney Michael S. Pavlick Fat JGR Drafting Attorney Duane M. Searle PvsWk M.sagere/UOL Drafting AttorneyQUESTION PRESENTED What is the likely constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No. 2232 (2009), specifically analyzed under Article III §§ 1 and 37 BRIEF ANSWER Passage of the Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No. 2232 (2009), in its current form would not violate the Article III section 1 stricture against passing a bill with alteration of purpose but would violate the Article III section 3 stricture against passage of a bill with multiple subjects. STATEMENT OF FACTS By memorandum dated October 5, 2010, you raised the subject question.DISCUSSION I. What is the likely constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No. 2232 (2009), specifically analyzed under Article III sections 1 and 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution? A, Status and History. Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No. 1532 (2009), was introduced on December 14, 2009. Bill Information, Legislative Data Processing Website. The original version of the bill regulated fiscal security for county officers and employees under 16 Pa.C.S. (Counties) by consolidating several provisions of existing statutes. Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No. 1532 (2009), p. 1. on May 3, 2010, the bill was amended on second consideration in the Senate. Bill Information, Legislative Data Processing Website. The first amended version of the bill continued to regulate fiscal security for county officers and employees under 16 Pa.c.S. Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer‘’s No. 1922 (2009), Pp. 1. Various alterations, not material to the instant question, were made to the text. Id. pp. 1-18. The bill passed the Senate on May 5, 2010. . Bill Information, Legislative Data Processing Website.On September 27, 2010, the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives re-reported the bill with amendments. Bill Information, Legislative Data Processing Website. The second amended version continued to regulate fiscal security for county officers and employees but also added provisions related to effects of natural gas drilling and to a Marcellus Shale job creation tax credit. Senate Bill No. 1155, No. 2221 (2009), p. 1. A natural gas severance State tax was imposed. Id., Pp. 24, A portion of the tax revenue was distributed to counties. Id., pp. 45-53. A job creation tax credit, administered by the Department of Community and Economic Development, was established. Id., pp. 53-59. No other changes were made to the text. See id., pp. 5-18. on September 28, 2010, the bill was amended on the floor of the House of Representatives. Bill Information, Legislative Data Processing Website. Additional alterations, not material to the instant question, were made. Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No. 2232 (2009), pp. 46-47. On September 29, 2010, the bill finally passed the House of Representatives. Bill Information, Legislative Data Processing Website.B. Alteration of Purpose. The Pennsylvania Constitution is specific on this subject: “[N]o bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose.” 1 Pa. Const. (1984 Ed.) Art. III, § 1, Purdon’s Statutes Const. Art. 3, § 1 (1994). The original purpose of a bill has not been changed if the final purpose of the bill does not alter the original purpose of the bill and, in its final form, the title and contents of the bill are not deceptive. Stilp v. Commonwealth, 588 Pa. 539, 603- 04, 905 A.2d 918, 956 (2006); Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 583 Pa. 275, 317, 877 A.2d 383, 408-09 (2005); City of Philadelphia v. Rendell, 888 A.2d 922, 933 (Pa. Commonwealth 2005). If Senate Bill No. 1155, Printer’s No, 2232 (2009), is enacted, it would pass this test. The original purpose, regulating fiscal security for county officers and employees, has not been altered. The title of the bill generally reflects all of the contents of the bill and is not deceptive.Multiple Subjects. The Pennsylvania Constitution is specific on this subject: “No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject...” 1 Pa. Const. (1984 Ed.) Art. III, § 3, Purdon’s Statutes Const. Art. 3, § 3 (1994). There are exceptions for general appropriations statutes and codifications. Neither of these apply to the instant question. To pass muster under the single-subject standard, an act must have a single unifying subject to which all of its provisions are germane. City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa, 542, 579, 838 A.2d 566, 589 (2003). The case involved a challenge to Act 2002-230, which amended 53 Pa.C.S. (Municipalities Generally). Id. at 549, 838 A.2d at 571. Act 2002-230 originated as a bill dealing with citizenship requirements for municipal governing bodies. Id. During passage, Act 2002-230 was expanded to cover, inter alia: collective bargaining arbitration provisions in Philadelphia; changes to the size, composition, and governance of the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority; authority over taxicabs and limousines in Philadelphia; functions and supervision of the Philadelphia Parking Authority; and police officer participation in election campaigns. Id. at 552-53, 838 A.2d at 572-73.After analyzing Act 2002-230 in light of whether there exists a single unifying subject to which all of the provisions of the act are germane, the Court concluded that the act violated Article III, section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. city of Philadelphia, 575 Pa. at 586, 838 A.2d at 593. The Court determined the subject matter of Title 53-- municipalities--is too broad for single-subject status under Article III, section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. at $80, 838 A.2d at 589. Further, the Court could not ascertain a logical or legislative nexus among the various provisions of Act 2002-230. Id. at 579, 838 A.2d at 589. For example, the connection between restricting the political activities of police officers and authorizing parking authorities to undertake certain projects is not readily apparent. Id. The Supreme Court again considered the single-subject matter in Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion, supra. In that case a bill that dealt with criminal history background reports for persons participating in harness or horse racing was amended to add, among other items, provisions authorizing racetrack and other gaming, providing for regulation of gaming licensees, establishing and providing for the powers and duties of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, conferring powers andimposing duties on various entities, establishing various funds and making appropriations. In conducting its analysis, the Court found that, unlike the issue in City of Philadelphia, a single unifying subject, the regulation of gaming, was present. Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion, 583 Pa. at 297, 877 A.2d at 396. The Court specifically addressed the scope of the subject: “The single topic of gaming does not encompass the limitless number of subjects which could be encompassed under the heading of ‘municipalities.’” Id. ‘The Court reiterated this concept in Spahn v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 602 Pa. 83, 110, 977 A.2d 1132, 1148 (2009) (holding that the bill at issue did not violate the single-subject requirement; the bill applied to the single topic of Philadelphia home rule government). The question then, is whether Senate Bill No. 1555, Printer’s No. 2232 (2009), can be construed to have a single subject as broad as that of “municipalities” in City of Philadelphia or as narrow as that of “gaming” in Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion. Under the analysis in the two cases, Senate Bill 1155, Printer’s No. 2232 (2009), is violative of Article III, section 3, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The subject matter of Title 16--counties--is too broad, in and of itself, for single-subjectstatus; and finding a logical or legislative nexus among the various provisions of Senate Bill 1155 proves equally difficult. There are three major components: first, required fiscal security measures through bonding, blanket bonding, and insuring county officers and employees; second, imposition of a natural gas severance State tax, albeit with a portion of the tax revenues being distributed to counties; and, third, a job creation tax credit to be administered by the Department of Community and Economic Development. These provisions are new law and not a consolidation similar to those provisions involving counties in the original version: Senate Bill 1155, Printer’s No. 1532 (2009) . To reach the conclusion that a bill contains more than one subject, determination is required as to whether disparate subjects constitute parts of a unifying scheme to accomplish a single purpose. City of Philadelphia, 575 Pa. at 579, 838 A.2d at 589. There is no single purpose to be accomplished by uniting required fiscal security measures through bonding, blanket bonding and insuring of county officers and employees; imposition of a natural gas severance State tax, albeit with a portion of the tax revenues being distributed to counties; and a job creation tax credit to be administered by the Department of Community and Economic Development. The connection among thethree major components is too attenuated for Senate Bill 1155 to present a unifying subject for constitutional purposes. For purposes of the single-subject requirement, requiring DNA samples from incarcerated felony sex offenders does not bear a proper relation to joint and several liability for negligence, even though both topics are properly included in the Judicial Code. Defleese v. Weaver, 824 A.2d 364, 370 (Pa. Commonwealth 2003) allocatur denied, 588 Pa. 783, 906 A.2d 1193 (2006). Unlike the subject matter at issue in DeWeese, it is questionable whether the effects of natural gas drilling, including a natural gas severance State tax, and a State job creation tax credit fall within the purview of Title 16--counties. In DeWeese, the two different subjects of Act 2002-57, although not related, were appropriate for inclusion in Title 42 as both related to the general subject matter of Title 42, i.e., business of the courts or judicial procedure. Under Senate Bill 1155 the severance tax imposed is a State tax to be administered by the Department of Revenue. Counties are only involved in the severance tax provisions to the extent that they are eligible to share in the distribution of severance tax revenues. The majority of revenues are deposited in the Commonwealth's General Fund and other state funds. This connection between counties and the severance tax is 10tenuous. On the other hand, the tax credit to be administered by the Department of Community and Economic Development may be claimed by drilling companies and applied against State taxes. There is absolutely no direct nexus between the job creation tax credit and counties. The Court has held that provisions relating to an instrument of the Commonwealth (the Philadelphia Convention Center) could not be subsumed under even the general subject of municipalities. City of Philadelphia, 575 Pa. at $80, 838 A.2d at 590. Using this analysis, the subject matter that deals with a natural gas severance tax and a job creation tax credit in Senate Bill 1155 is outside the scope of Title 16--counties. For purposes of the single-subject requirement, required fiscal security measures for county officers and employees bears little relationship to imposition of a natural gas severance State tax, albeit with a portion of the tax revenues being distributed to counties, and bears no relationship to a State job creation tax credit. aCONCLUSION Senate Bill 1155 began as legislation regulating fiscal security for county officers and employees. In its current form the legislation still regulates fiscal security for county officers and employees but, additionally, imposes a natural gas severance State tax, with a portion of the tax revenues being distributed to counties, and establishes a job creation tax credit The original purpose of the bill has not been changed because its final purpose does not alter its original purpose, xegulating fiscal security for county officers and employees, and because, in its final form, the title and contents of the bill clearly state all subjects which are currently embraced in the bill. To pass muster under the single-subject standard, an act must have a single unifying subject to which all of its provisions are germane. The three major components of the bill are: first, required fiscal security measures through bonding, blanket bonding, and insuring county officers and employees; second, imposition of a natural gas severance State tax, with a portion of the tax revenues being distributed to counties; and, third, a job creation tax credit to be administered by the 12Department of Community and Economic Development. There is no single purpose to be accomplished by uniting the first component with the second and third components. The subject matter that deals with a natural gas severance tax and a job creation tax credit in the bill is outside the scope of Title 16--counties. The severance tax is a State tax administered by a Commonwealth agency. Counties only share in the distribution of severance tax revenues. The tax credit applies against State taxes. No direct nexus between the job creation tax credit and counties exists. For purposes of the single-subject requirement, required fiscal security for county officers and employees does not bear a proper relationship to imposition of a natural gas severance State tax, albeit with a portion of the tax revenues being distributed to counties, and a job creation tax credit. VDL/alg 13