Pennsylvania Philadelphia Traffic Court Abolition Amendment, Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 (April 2016)
| Pennsylvania Amendment 2 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date April 26, 2016 | |
| Topic State judiciary | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
| 2016 measures |
|---|
 |
| April 26 |
| Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 |
| November 8 |
| Judicial Retirement Age Amendment |
| Polls |
| Voter guides |
| Campaign finance |
| Signature costs |
Pennsylvania Proposed Amendment 2, the Philadelphia Traffic Court Abolition Amendment, was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the Pennsylvania ballot on April 26, 2016. It was approved.
| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of abolishing the traffic court in the City of Philadelphia. |
| A "no" vote was a vote against abolishing the traffic court in the City of Philadelphia. |
In 2013, the state legislature transferred the duties and authority of the Philadelphia Traffic Court to the Philadelphia Municipal Court. This measure was designed to officially abolish the Philadelphia Traffic Court from the Pennsylvania Constitution. It did not have an immediate effect on traffic-related judicial proceedings in the city.[1]
Election results
| Pennsylvania, Amendment 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 1,448,141 | 59.67% | ||
| No | 978,618 | 40.33% | ||
Election results via: Pennsylvania Department of State
Why is this on the ballot?
The Philadelphia Traffic Court "has been described as the most corrupt court in Pennsylvania," according to Debbie Kulick, a columnist for Pike & Monroe Life.[2]
Traffic court judges were not required to have education or experience requirements and were often thought to be mere political appointees. Making over $91,000 per year, the judges often received special privileges and under-the-table gifts. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court commissioned an investigation in 2012, revealing that traffic court judges “routinely made, accepted and granted third-party requests for preferential treatment" for politically-connected family and friends.[2]
For example, nine current and former judges were indicted in January 2016 for an alleged ticket-fixing scheme. One judge reportedly received a free patio, discounted lawn care, and other perks in return for fixing traffic tickets.[2]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The language of the measure appeared on the ballot as:[1]
| “ | Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to abolish the Philadelphia Traffic Court?[3] | ” |
Plain English statement
The following was the "Plain English Statement of the Office of Attorney General:"[1]
| “ | The purpose of the ballot question is to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to abolish the Traffic Court in the City of Philadelphia. Presently, the Pennsylvania Constitution provides for the Traffic Court in the City of Philadelphia as part of the unified judicial system. If the ballot question were to be approved, the Traffic Court in the City of Philadelphia would be abolished by removing all references to the Traffic Court and the judges of the Traffic Court in the City of Philadelphia from the Pennsylvania Constitution. Legislation enacted in 2013 transferred the functions performed by the Traffic Court to the Philadelphia Municipal Court. As a result, violations of the Vehicle Code previously adjudicated by the Traffic Court are presently being adjudicated by the Philadelphia Municipal Court. The proposed amendment would officially abolish the Traffic Court by removing all references to the Traffic Court and its judges from the Pennsylvania Constitution. This ballot question is limited to whether the Traffic Court in the City of Philadelphia should be abolished. The ballot question would not amend any other provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution beyond the removal of all references to the Traffic Court and its judges. The effect of the ballot question would be to abolish the Traffic Court in the City of Philadelphia. As discussed above, legislation enacted in 2013 transferred the functions of the Traffic Court to the Philadelphia Municipal Court. This amendment would officially abolish the Traffic Court by removing all references to the Traffic Court and its judges from the Pennsylvania Constitution.[3] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article V, Pennsylvania Constitution
The amendment deleted the following struck-through text and added following underlined text in Section 1 of Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
(1) That section 1 of Article V be amended to read:
§ 1. Unified judicial system.
The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a unified judicial system consisting of the Supreme Court, the Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court, courts of common pleas, community courts, municipal and traffic courts in the City of Philadelphia, such other courts as may be provided by law and justices of the peace. All courts and justices of the peace and their jurisdiction shall be in this unified judicial system.
(2) That the heading and subsection (c) of section 6 of Article V be amended to read:
§ 6. Community courts; Philadelphia Municipal Court and Traffic Court.
(c) In the City of Philadelphia there shall be a municipal court and a traffic court. The number of judges and the jurisdiction of each shall be as provided by law. These courts This court shall exist so long as a community court has not been established or in the event one has been discontinued under this section.
(3) That subsection (d) of section 10 of Article V be amended to read:
§ 10. Judicial administration.
(d) The Chief Justice and president judges of all courts with seven or less judges shall be the justice or judge longest in continuous service on their respective courts; and in the event of his resignation from this position the justice or judge next longest in continuous service shall be the Chief Justice or president judge. The president judges of all other courts shall be selected for five-year terms by the members of their respective courts, except that the president judge of the traffic court in the City of Philadelphia shall be appointed by the Governor. A Chief Justice or president judge may resign such position and remain a member of the court. In the event of a tie vote for office of president judge in a court which elects its president judge, the Supreme Court shall appoint as president judge one of the judges receiving the highest number of votes.
(4) That subsection (b) of section 12 of Article V be amended to read:
§ 12. Qualifications of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
(b) Judges of the traffic court in the City of Philadelphia and justices Justices of the peace shall be members of the bar of the Supreme Court or shall complete a course of training and instruction in the duties of their respective offices and pass an examination prior to assuming office. Such courses and examinations shall be as provided by law.
(5) That subsection (a) of section 15 of Article V be amended to read:
§ 15. Tenure of justices, judges and justices of the peace.
(a) The regular term of office of justices and judges shall be ten years and the regular term of office for judges of the municipal court and traffic court in the City of Philadelphia and of justices of the peace shall be six years. The tenure of any justice or judge shall not be affected by changes in judicial districts or by reduction in the number of judges.[3]
Final text
The full text of the legislation can be read here.
Support
Supporters
Arguments in favor
Gaetan J. Alfano, Deborah R. Gross, and Mary F. Platt, of the Philadelphia Bar Association, wrote an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, saying:[4]
| “ | Although intended to deal specifically with traffic violations, Philadelphia Traffic Court became a breeding ground for corruption and political patronage jobs. Over the years, the court was plagued by recurring cycles of investigations, convictions, and halfhearted reform efforts. ... Traffic Court has been an abomination and an affront to the citizens of this city, where actual judges serve with integrity and fidelity to their offices. Traffic Court, however, still exists because it is enshrined in the Pennsylvania Constitution.[3] | ” |
Opposition
If you know of any opponents or arguments that should be posted here, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $0.00 |
| Opposition: | $0.00 |
As of September 12, 2016, no ballot question committees registered to support or oppose Amendment 2.[6]
Media editorials
Support
The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:[5]
| “ | As voters contemplate whether to abolish a court that brought so little justice and so much embarrassment to the city, they should consider the real justice that was visited upon the court.
Traffic Court was so corrupt that a federal jury found four of its judges guilty of lying to a grand jury or the FBI in a sprawling ticket-fixing case. Three more pleaded guilty to fixing tickets, one of them in exchange for the seafood and dirty DVDs. Another, found not guilty in the ticket-fixing case, pleaded guilty to separate tax charges. In 2013, after the scandal erupted, the state legislature wisely shut down Traffic Court's operations. Traffic violations since then have been handled in Municipal Court, where the judges actually have law degrees. That wasn't a requirement for Traffic Court judges, though unflinching loyalty to the city Democrats (or, at one time, Republicans) was. The court in turn ensured that those connected to the Democratic political machine enjoyed leniency while the rest of us paid the fines.[3] |
” |
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published a column on April 22, 2016 that said,[7]
| “ | For four decades, Philadelphia’s traffic court made headlines for all the wrong reasons. In 1978 the president judge was indicted, and later convicted, of taking $32,000 in bribes and gifts. In the 1980s a ticket-fixing scheme involving $100,000 in illegal payoffs ended in the conviction of 12 people. A judge resigned in 2012 after a controversy that began when he showed cellphone photos of his penis to a female worker.
Finally, in 2013, three of the traffic court’s judges pleaded guilty to ticket fixing in exchange for gifts and four others were found guilty of lying to a grand jury or federal agents. In response to the latest scandal, the Legislature passed and Gov. Tom Corbett signed a measure that shut down the court. Its case work was transferred to Philadelphia Municipal Court, where judges, unlike those in traffic court, must be members of the bar. All that remains is to officially remove Philadelphia Traffic Court, the only one of its kind in Pennsylvania, from the state constitution. The General Assembly has already approved the amendment, as required, in two consecutive legislative sessions. Pennsylvanians can do it once and for all on Tuesday by voting Yes.[3] |
” |
Opposition
If you know of any media opposition to this measure, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution
A simple majority vote in both chambers of the Pennsylvania Legislature during two successive legislative sessions was required to refer this amendment to the ballot. The Pennsylvania Senate unanimously approved the bill on January 28, 2015. The Pennsylvania House approved the bill on December 3, 2015, with one "nay" vote.
Senate vote
January 28, 2015, Senate vote
| Pennsylvania SB 283 Senate Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 49 | 100.00% | ||
| No | 0 | 0.00% | ||
House vote
December 3, 2015, House vote
| Pennsylvania SB 283 House Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 190 | 99.48% | ||
| No | 1 | 0.52% | ||
Related measures
| State judiciary measures on the ballot in 2016 | |
|---|---|
| State | Measures |
| Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment
|
| Alabama | Alabama Qualifying Age for Pickens County Judges, Amendment 9 
|
| Oregon | Oregon Elimination of Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age, Measure 94 |
Recent news
This section links to a Google news search for the term "Philadelphia + Traffic + Court"
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Pennsylvania Secretary of State, "Proposed amendments to the constitution of Pennsylvania," accessed March 28, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Pocono Record, "A controversial traffic court's future to be decided at primaries," April 14, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Philly.com, "Commentary: On April 26, vote to abolish Phila. Traffic Court," March 30, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Philadelphia Inquirer, "Inquirer editorial: One last fix for Phila. Traffic Court," April 7, 2016
- ↑ Pennsylvania Department of State,"Campaign finance online reporting," accessed September 12, 2016
- ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "End the scandal: Vote Yes to abolish Philadelphia’s Traffic Court," April 22, 2016
