In Re Petition for Agenda Initiative to Place on the Agenda of Council for Consideration , 206 A.3d 617 ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    In Re: Petition for Agenda Initiative     :
    to Place on the Agenda of a Regular       :
    Meeting of County Council for             :
    Consideration and Vote a Proposed         :
    Ordinance Amending Part 12,               :
    Government Review, of the                 :
    Administrative Code of Allegheny          :
    County to Add Article 1205, Voting        :
    Process Review Commission                 :
    :
    Appeal of: OpenPittsburgh.Org,            :
    Black Political Empowerment Project,      :
    Tim Stevens, David M. Brown,              :
    William Lawrence III, and                 :   No. 451 C.D. 2018
    Mirsada Begovic                           :   Argued: October 17, 2018
    BEFORE:      HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge
    HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
    HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
    HONORABLE PATRICA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
    HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
    HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
    OPINION BY
    JUDGE COVEY                                   FILED: March 26, 2019
    OpenPittsburgh.Org, Black Political Empowerment Project, Tim
    Stevens, David M. Brown, William Lawrence III and Mirsada Begovic (collectively,
    OpenPittsburgh.Org) appeal from the Allegheny County (County) Common Pleas
    Court’s   (trial   court)   March   15,   2018    order   dismissing     their   appeal.
    OpenPittsburgh.Org presents the following issues for this Court’s review: (1) whether
    the County Administrative Code’s (Administrative Code) subject matter restriction
    on voter referenda and agenda initiative petitions related to the conduct of elections is
    unconstitutional; (2) whether the ordinance (Ordinance) proposed by the Agenda
    Initiative Petition (Petition) to establish a Voting Process Review Commission to
    conduct periodic review of the County’s voting machine systems is legally proper
    under the County Home Rule Charter (CHRC) and Pennsylvania’s Home Rule
    Charter and Optional Plans Law (HRC&OPL)1 as it does not involve the conduct of
    elections as defined by Pennsylvania law; (3) whether the Ordinance can be read in
    conjunction with the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code)2 and the
    Pennsylvania Constitution because it follows the electors’ constitutional right to
    select devices used for recording and computing votes;3 and, (4) whether the
    Ordinance’s severability clause enables County Council to enact the Ordinance’s
    lawful provisions and sever any individual unlawful, invalid, void or unenforceable
    provisions therefrom without rejecting the Ordinance in full.              After review, we
    affirm.
    On July 24, 2017, OpenPittsburgh.Org submitted the Petition to the
    County Council’s clerk to place the Ordinance on the County Council’s regular
    meeting agenda. Although County Council determined that the Ordinance met all of
    the Administrative Code’s formal requirements, it nevertheless issued a Statement of
    Clarification dated August 7, 2017 certifying the Petition as insufficient. County
    Council relied on the County Solicitor’s conclusion that the Ordinance is not legally
    proper for County Council’s consideration. On August 17, 2017, OpenPittsburgh.Org
    appealed from County Council’s decision to the trial court, asking the trial court to
    reverse the County Solicitor’s conclusion and to compel County Council to place the
    1
    53 Pa.C.S. §§ 2901-3171.
    2
    Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as amended, 25 P.S. §§ 2600-3591.
    3
    OpenPittsburgh.Org separated this issue into two arguments. See OpenPittsburgh.Org Br.
    at 4-5. We have combined them for ease of discussion.
    2
    Ordinance on its agenda. The trial court dismissed OpenPittsburgh.Org’s appeal as
    meritless. OpenPittsburgh.Org appealed to this Court.4
    OpenPittsburgh.Org first argues that Section 5-1101.02(C)(3)(e) of the
    Administrative Code is unconstitutional because it improperly prohibits voter
    referenda and initiatives simply because they involve elections.5 The Pennsylvania
    Supreme Court has reiterated:
    [O]rdinances enjoy the presumption that they are
    constitutionally valid. Moreover, it is indisputable that the
    party challenging the constitutionality of an ordinance
    carries the heavy burden of proving that it is
    unconstitutional. See Upper Salford Twp. v. Collins, . . .
    
    669 A.2d 335
    , 336 ([Pa.] 1995) (‘Anyone challenging the
    constitutionality of such an ordinance bears a heavy burden
    of proof.’). Indeed, the ‘heavy burden resting upon the
    person asserting unconstitutionality of legislation is one of
    the most firmly[-]established principles of our law[.]’
    Bilbar Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Easttown Twp., .
    . . 
    141 A.2d 851
    , 855 ([Pa.] 1958) (collecting cases). To
    meet that heavy burden of proof, a challenger must
    demonstrate that the legislative enactment at issue
    clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution,
    such that there is no doubt or hesitation in the mind of
    the court. See 
    id. (explaining that
    a ‘legislative enactment
    can be declared void only when it violates the fundamental
    law clearly, palpably, plainly and in such manner as to leave
    no doubt or hesitation in the minds of the court’).
    4
    “This Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court committed
    legal error and whether the findings were supported by the evidence.” Wecht v. Roddey, 
    815 A.2d 1146
    , 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). “The question of whether the [trial] court[] erred in preventing the
    placement of the [Ordinance], on the [] County ballot is a pure question of law. Accordingly, our
    scope of review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.” In re Voter Referendum Petition
    Filed August 5, 2008, 
    981 A.2d 163
    , 170 (Pa. 2009).
    5
    The trial court did not address the constitutionality of Section 5-1101.02(C)(3)(e) of the
    Administrative Code; however, because it is a pure question of law, see Fross v. Cty. of Allegheny,
    
    20 A.3d 1193
    (Pa. 2011), and this Court’s review is de novo, see In re Voter Referendum Petition
    Filed August 5, 2008, we will address the issue herein.
    3
    Rufo v. Bd. of License & Inspection Review, 
    192 A.3d 1113
    , 1120 (Pa. 2018) (citation
    omitted; emphasis added).
    Section 5-1101.02(C)(3) of the Administrative Code provides, in
    relevant part: “As the powers of the [sic] are determined by applicable law, the
    following areas cannot be the subjects of agenda initiative or of voter referendum: . . .
    [r]egistration of electors and conduct of elections[.]” Appellee Br. Appendix A at 2.
    Section 5-1101.01 of the Administrative Code defines agenda initiative as:
    The presentation to County Council a petition with at least
    500 signatures of registered voters in [the] County
    proposing an [o]rdinance for Council’s consideration and
    vote within the next 60 days. The proposed [o]rdinance
    must be germane to County [g]overnment and limited to
    one subject clearly expressed in its title. Pursuant to Article
    XII, § 1.12-1201, of the [CHRC], an agenda referendum
    petition is defined to be the same as an agenda initiative
    petition.
    Appellee Br. Appendix A at 1. Voter referendum is defined as:
    The filing with the applicable election officials on or before
    the 13th Tuesday prior to the next primary or general
    election a petition containing a proposed ordinance for
    referendum signed by registered voters comprising at least
    5% of the number of registered voters in the County voting
    for the Office of Governor in the most recent gubernatorial
    general election. The applicable election official shall place
    the proposal on the ballot for decision by referendum at said
    election.
    
    Id. Our Supreme
    Court explained:
    [U]nlike states such as California, governance by referenda
    is a relatively rare occurrence in Pennsylvania, where we
    hold strong to the ideals of representative democracy and
    have no general constitutional provision for voter
    initiative or referenda. See English v. Commonwealth,
    
    845 A.2d 999
    , 1002 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (‘[N]either Article
    I, Section 2 nor any other provision of the Pennsylvania
    4
    Constitution provides an unlimited right to challenge
    laws via initiative and referendum.’); Governor’s Center
    for Local Government Service, Pennsylvania Department of
    Community and Economic Development, Referendum
    Handbook (1999). Instead, referenda are limited to areas of
    the law that are specifically identified either in our
    Constitution or by act of the General Assembly. . . . An
    exception to the general rule against referenda is contained
    in many Home Rule Charters, including that of Allegheny
    County.
    In 2000, Allegheny County adopted the Home Rule Charter,
    which in relevant part, provided for the rights of initiative
    and referendum. The preamble to the Charter provides[:]
    ‘We the people of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, believe
    that: . . . [a] home rule government that permits initiative
    and referendum will respond to the concerns of its citizens.’
    Article XII of the Home Rule Charter sets forth three areas
    for voter involvement. First, ‘voters of the County shall
    have the power to propose ordinances by petition for
    consideration by County Council.’ Home Rule Charter,
    Article XII, § 1 (entitled ‘Agenda Initiative’). Section 2,
    entitled ‘Voter Referendum,’ provides, ‘voters of the
    County shall have the power to propose ordinances by
    petition for consideration by the voters of the County.’
    Home Rule Charter, Article XII, § 2(a). Voter referendum
    questions must be germane to County government and
    involve a single subject, clearly expressed in the title.
    Moreover, the petition seeking a voter referendum must be
    signed by voters of the County comprising five percent of
    the number of voters who voted in the most recent
    gubernatorial     election,    which     currently    requires
    approximately 23,000 voters. [CHRC,] Article XII, § 2(b).
    If approved by the voters, the ordinance proposed in the
    referendum question ‘shall become effective in accordance
    with its terms’ and ‘shall not be subject to veto and shall not
    be amended or repealed by County Council for two years
    following its approval.’ [CHRC,] Article XII, § 2(d).
    Finally, the third method of voter involvement is amending
    the Home Rule Charter through a referendum initiated by
    ordinance of County Council or by petition of voters.
    [CHRC], Article XII, § 3 (entitled ‘Amendment of the
    [CHRC]’).
    5
    In re Voter Referendum Petition Filed August 5, 2008, 
    981 A.2d 163
    , 171 (Pa. 2009)
    (citations and footnotes omitted).
    OpenPittsburgh.Org appears to argue that Section 5-1101.02(C)(3)(e) of
    the Administrative Code violates Article IX, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania
    Constitution because “local referenda on the authorization of voting machines is
    expressly authorized under the Pennsylvania Constitution and by acts of the General
    Assembly.” OpenPittsburgh.Org Br. at 18. However, this Court has expounded:
    [Article IX, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution]
    limits the power of state government to infringe on the
    natural rights of citizens and recognizes the right to alter,
    reform or abolish government. Nonetheless, there is no
    legal authority indicating that the provision has ever
    been interpreted to create an inherent right to exercise
    initiative and referendum as to every legislated measure.
    Nor does the language of Article I, Section 2 [of the
    Pennsylvania Constitution] contradict the basic rule of law
    that the General Assembly has authority to exclude
    certain legislative matters from the initiative and
    referendum process. Williams v. Rowe, . . . 
    283 A.2d 881
                  ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1971) (in a representative form of
    government, the General Assembly possesses legislative
    discretion to preclude specific matters from the referendum
    process).
    English v. Commonwealth, 
    816 A.2d 382
    , 387 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
    Based on the above, this Court rules that OpenPittsburgh.Org has failed
    to “demonstrate that the legislative enactment at issue clearly, palpably, and plainly
    violates the Constitution, such that there is no doubt or hesitation in the mind of
    the court.”    
    Rufo, 192 A.3d at 1120
    (emphasis added).          Accordingly, because
    OpenPittsburgh.Org has not met its “heavy burden of proving that [Section 5-
    1101.02(C)(3)(e) of the Administrative Code] is unconstitutional[,]” this Court
    cannot rule that Section 5-1101.02(C)(3)(e) of the Administrative Code is
    unconstitutional. 
    Id. 6 OpenPittsburgh.Org
    next argues that the Ordinance is legally proper
    under the CHRC and the HRC&OPL, as it does not involve the conduct of elections
    as defined by Pennsylvania law.
    Initially, Section 2962(a) of the HRC&OPL provides, in relevant part:
    With respect to the following subjects, the home rule
    charter shall not give any power or authority to the
    municipality contrary to or in limitation or enlargement
    of powers granted by statutes which are applicable to a class
    or classes of municipalities: . . . [t]he registration of electors
    and the conduct of elections.
    53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(a) (emphasis added). Section 3107-C(h) of the Second Class
    County Code6 states in pertinent part:
    With respect to the following subjects, the charter shall
    not give any power or authority to the county contrary
    to or in limitation or enlargement of powers granted by
    acts of the General Assembly which are applicable to
    counties of the second class: . . . [t]he registration of
    electors and the conduct of elections.
    16 P.S. § 6107-C(h) (emphasis added). Correspondingly, the CHRC establishes that
    the procedures for agenda referendum petitions shall be established in the
    Administrative Code, see CHRC, Art. XII §§ 1.12-1201, which prohibits agenda
    initiative or voter referendum involving the conduct of elections.                        See
    Administrative Code, § 5-1101.02(C)(3).
    OpenPittsburgh.Org relies upon Bell v. Lehigh County Board of
    Elections, 
    729 A.2d 1259
    (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), wherein this Court adopted and
    attached the Lehigh County Common Pleas Court’s (Bell trial court) opinion, to
    support its position. The Bell trial court discussed the meaning of the conduct of
    elections in the context of whether “the entire initiative process adopted by
    6
    Act of July 28, 1953, P.L. 723, No. 230, as amended, added by Section 3 of Act of May
    20, 1997, P.L. 149, No. 12, 16 P.S. § 6107-C(h). Allegheny County is a second class county.
    7
    [Allentown] in its home rule charter was beyond the scope of [Allentown’s] legal
    authority under the Pennsylvania Home Rule Charter Law.” 
    Id. at 1263.
    The Bell
    trial court concluded, which this Court adopted:
    Subchapter D [of the HRC] entitled: Conduct and Result of
    Elections] insofar as it deals with ‘the conduct of elections’
    covers only the procedures for voting and tabulating the
    votes under the Election Code. It does not encompass the
    process of determining whether a matter is to be placed
    on the ballot. This is strong evidence that the General
    Assembly did not intend to include the initiative and
    referendum processes in the phrase ‘the conduct of
    elections’. . . .
    
    Bell, 729 A.2d at 1266
    (emphasis added).
    In the instant case, Section 1205.1 of the Ordinance states in relevant
    part:
    The intent of this article is to establish a Voting Process
    Review Commission having technical expertise, election
    operating experience, and an awareness of the requirements
    for voters with special needs, that will conduct regular
    periodic reviews of the equipment and software utilized by
    the County for its voting system and related administrative
    support and of the policy, practices, processes, and
    procedures which may involve or affect the conducting of
    elections . . . .
    Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 215a (emphasis added).            Section 1205.2 of the
    Ordinance establishes the Voting Process Review Commission and states:
    A[] [] County Voting Process Review Commission shall be
    created and empowered as provided herein to conduct
    evaluation reviews to assess the viability, efficiency, and
    effectiveness of the County’s hardware and accompanying
    software used for its voting system and administrative
    support, and, of policies, practices, processes, and
    procedures that pertain to or may affect conducting of
    elections.
    8
    
    Id. (emphasis added).
    As the Ordinance itself expressly states that its purpose is to
    create a commission to review the equipment and “policy, practices, processes, and
    procedures which may involve or affect the conducting of elections” and that the
    Voting Process Review Commission will be empowered to review the County’s
    “policies, practices, processes, and procedures that pertain to or may affect
    conducting of elections[,]” the Bell analysis is not warranted. 
    Id. The Ordinance
    leaves no doubt that it involves the conduct of elections. Notwithstanding, as the
    Voting Process Review Commission established by the Ordinance is empowered “to
    assess the viability, efficiency, and effectiveness of the County’s hardware and
    accompanying software used for its voting system[,]” 
    id., the Ordinance
    clearly
    involves “the procedures for voting and tabulating the votes under the Election Code.
    . . .” 
    Bell, 729 A.2d at 1266
    . Consequently, the Ordinance involves “the conduct of
    elections,” as that term was established in Bell. 
    Id. Accordingly, the
    Ordinance is
    not authorized by the CHRC or the HRC&OPL.7
    7
    This Court notes that the Ordinance would also require County Council to initiate a voter
    referendum under the CHRC. See Section 1205.16(A) of the Ordinance (“County Council shall by
    resolution cause a referendum question to be placed on the ballot in a special election[.]”). Our
    Supreme Court has held that County Council has no authority to initiate a voter referendum on any
    subject other than an amendment of the CHRC pursuant to Article XII, §3 thereof. See In re Voter
    Referendum. Specifically, the Supreme Court explained:
    County Council has no authority to enact a referendum under the
    [CHRC]. . . . The [CHRC] has no provision for County Council to
    propose voter referendums, outside of an amendment of the [CHRC].
    The only method for placing a voter referendum on the ballot is
    through the collections of currently 23,000 signatures of registered
    voters (five percent of the number who voted in the most recent
    gubernatorial election.)
    
    Id. at 178.
    Our Supreme Court concluded: “[T]o allow a majority of the nine council[]members to
    place a referendum on the ballot undermines the protections placed in the [CHRC] and potentially
    opens the County to a dramatic change in governance without an amendment to the [CHRC].” 
    Id. As such,
    the Ordinance would fail on this point as well.
    9
    OpenPittsburgh.Org next asserts that the Ordinance can be read in
    conjunction with the Election Code and the Pennsylvania Constitution because it
    follows the electors’ constitutional right to select devices used for recording and
    computing votes.
    Pennsylvania Constitution Article VII, Section 6 provides:
    All laws regulating the holding of elections by the citizens,
    or for the registration of electors, shall be uniform
    throughout the [s]tate, except that laws regulating and
    requiring the registration of electors may be enacted to
    apply to cities only, provided that such laws be uniform for
    cities of the same class, and except further, that the
    General Assembly shall, by general law, permit the use
    of voting machines, or other mechanical devices for
    registering or recording and computing the vote, at all
    elections or primaries, in any county, city, borough,
    incorporated town or township of the Commonwealth, at
    the option of the electors of such county, city, borough,
    incorporated town or township, without being obliged to
    require the use of such voting machines or mechanical
    devices in any other county, city, borough, incorporated
    town or township, under such regulations with reference
    thereto as the General Assembly may from time to time
    prescribe. The General Assembly may, from time to time,
    prescribe the number and duties of election officers in any
    political subdivision of the Commonwealth in which voting
    machines or other mechanical devices authorized by this
    section may be used.
    Pa. Const. art. VII, § 6 (emphasis added). Section 302 of the Election Code states, in
    relevant part:
    The county boards of elections, within their respective
    counties, shall exercise, in the manner provided by [the
    Election Code], all powers granted to them by [the Election
    Code], and shall perform all the duties imposed upon them
    by [the Election Code], which shall include the following: .
    ..
    [t]o purchase, preserve, store and maintain primary and
    election equipment of all kinds, including voting booths,
    10
    ballot boxes and voting machines, and to procure ballots
    and all other supplies for elections.
    25 P.S. § 2642 (emphasis added). Because the Pennsylvania Constitution reserves
    the power to provide, by general law, the use and choice of voting machines to the
    General Assembly, and the General Assembly has enacted the Election Code which
    delegates said power to the County’s Board of Elections (Elections Board), the
    Election Code is the final authority on voting machines in this Commonwealth.
    Thus, the Elections Board has the exclusive control over election equipment.
    Section 5-1205.16 of the Ordinance establishes:
    A. If the [Voting Process Review] Commission’s
    preliminary review finds the County’s present voting
    system fails to meet all of the mandatory minimum criteria
    and that updating, upgrading or modifying it would be
    insufficient, or, if at a later point in its continuing review
    the Commission deems full replacement of the existing
    voting system to be necessary or advisable and the preferred
    alternative, then upon the [Voting Process Review]
    Commission’s request, County Council shall by
    resolution cause a referendum question to be placed on
    the ballot in a special election; a yes vote to the question
    approving, and a no vote rejecting, replacement as
    designated by the [Voting Process Review] Commission;
    the question to read: ‘Shall the County of Allegheny
    replace its current voting system in accordance with the
    designation and recommendations of the Voting Process
    Review Commission?’
    B. A referendum to approve or reject replacement of the
    existing voting system shall be scheduled for no later than
    would enable implementation of the [Voting Process
    Review] Commission’s findings prior to the municipal
    election cycle preceding the next presidential election.
    C. In the time before the referendum, under the direction of
    the [Voting Process Review] Commission, the County
    shall conduct an educational program to adequately
    notify the public about the Referendum and the
    considerations involved so voters can make an informed
    decision.
    11
    D. Should the referendum question receive a majority vote
    approving the replacement, then the County shall
    immediately proceed as designated in the [Voting
    Process      Review] Commission’s Final             Report.
    Alternatively, should the question receive a majority vote
    rejecting the designated replacement, the replacement of the
    voting system shall not proceed, except that the
    Pennsylvania Secretary of State or a court of competent
    jurisdiction may with just cause require the replacement. In
    any case, the Final Report’s other designated actions and
    recommendations shall be deemed still effective.
    R.R. at 223a (emphasis added). Section 5-1205.17 of the Ordinance further provides,
    in pertinent part:
    A. Upon the public release and presentation of the Final
    Report of the Voting Process Review Commission, its
    findings shall be presented to the [Elections Board] and
    to County Council. In addition, [Voting Process Review]
    Commission members shall meet with the [Elections] Board
    and Council as needed to provide additional information,
    answer questions, and assist implementation of the [Voting
    Process Review] Commission’s designated voting system
    requirements and recommendations.
    B. In order to avoid obstructive issues of timing and to
    provide ample funding in adequate time for the potential
    implementation of a new voting system designated by
    the first Voting Process Review Commission and of its
    recommendations, such to be available for the 2019
    Municipal election cycle:
    (1) Upon enactment of this [O]rdinance, [County] Council
    and the Administration shall proceed with the transfer of
    all remaining bond proceed appropriations from the
    [Help America Vote Act (]HAVA[)8] Compliant Voting
    Machines project and all remaining appropriations
    from those transferred in 2006 to a project entitled
    HAVA Compliant Voting Machines Paper Verification
    System Upgrade to a new project established for the
    purpose of implementing the designated voting system
    8
    42 U.S.C. §§ 15301-15545.
    12
    requirements and recommendations of the Voting Process
    Review Commission;
    (2) With replacement of the entire voting machine inventory
    likely to necessitate capital expenditures which would be
    too large to fit into the existing capital budget for a given
    year merely by amending it, the Administration and
    [County] Council shall, upon enactment of this
    [O]rdinance, initiate the necessary budgeting process(es)
    for appropriation and allocation of an amount sufficient
    to cover the anticipated need with such being assigned to
    a project fund that is dedicated to and set aside specifically
    for implementation of the [Voting Process] Review
    Commission’s designated voting system requirements and
    additional recommendations;
    (3) Upon release of the Commission’s Final Report, such
    appropriation(s) and allocation(s) as necessary shall be
    amended and adjusted to make available an amount
    sufficient to fully fund implementation of the [Voting
    Process Review] Commission’s designated voting system
    requirements and additional recommendations, with
    such being placed into the project fund designated for such
    purpose;
    (4) To ensure there will be enough lead time for a budget
    cycle to take place and for budget adjustments and/or
    amendments to be made upon release of the [Voting
    Process Review] Commission’s Final Report, the
    necessary budget process shall be expedited as possible
    to make the funding available as needed for implementation
    of the [Voting Process Review] Commission’s designated
    system requirements, which if for a new voting system shall
    be upon approval of the electorate by referendum, and for
    any additional recommendations;
    (5) The project fund for implementation of the [Voting
    Process Review] Commission’s designated system and
    additional recommendations shall be used by the
    Administration for the acquisition of voting system
    equipment, hardware, and software, for related
    contractual arrangements, and for such other ancillary
    purposes as designated by the [Voting Process] Review
    Commission in compliance with the provisions of this
    ordinance and shall be made available to the [Elections
    13
    Board] to implement, as it may, recommendations from the
    Voting Process Review Commission.
    R.R. at 223a-224a (emphasis added).
    A review of the above Ordinance provisions reveals that the Voting
    Process Review Commission would, in effect be acting as the General Assembly
    and/or the Elections Board by mandating that the County Council by resolution cause
    a referendum question to be placed on the ballot in a special election and by further
    mandating the County Council proceed as designated in the Voting Process Review
    Commission’s Final Report. The Ordinance not only usurps the General Assembly’s
    authority and the Elections Board’s control over Commonwealth voting machines,
    but also the funding thereof. Accordingly, the trial court properly concluded that the
    Ordinance arrogates the General Assembly’s power and undermines the Elections
    Board’s responsibilities.
    Lastly, OpenPittsburgh.Org argues the Ordinance’s severability clause
    enables County Council to enact all of the Ordinance’s lawful provisions and sever
    any individual unlawful, invalid, void or unenforceable provisions therefrom without
    rejecting the Ordinance in full.9
    Section 3 of the Ordinance provides: “If any provision of this
    Ordinance shall be determined to be unlawful, invalid, void or unenforceable, then
    that provision shall be considered severable from the remaining provisions of this
    Ordinance which shall be in full force and effect.” R.R. at 225a (italic and bold
    emphasis in original).
    9
    This Court notes that the doctrine of severability applies to duly enacted laws, and
    OpenPittsburgh.Org has failed to cite to any precedent which requires the General Assembly, or in
    this case County Council, to sever parts of any statute, law or ordinance that are merely proposed
    and not already enacted and later challenged. However, in an abundance of caution this Court will
    address the issue herein.
    14
    Section 1925 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 (SCA)
    establishes:
    The provisions of every statute shall be severable. If any
    provision of any statute or the application thereof to any
    person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the
    statute, and the application of such provision to other
    persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby,
    unless the court finds that the valid provisions of the statute
    are so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so
    depend upon, the void provision or application, that it
    cannot be presumed the General Assembly would have
    enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void
    one; or unless the court finds that the remaining valid
    provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable
    of being executed in accordance with the legislative intent.
    1 Pa.C.S. § 1925.10 “Thus, we turn to consider whether the statute can survive
    without those invalid provisions, with principal focus on the legislature’s intent. 1
    Pa.C.S. § 1925; Saulsbury v. Bethlehem Steel Co., . . . 
    196 A.2d 664
    , 667 ([Pa.] 1964)
    (‘In determining the severability of a statute or ordinance, the legislative intent is of
    primary significance.’).” Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 
    117 A.3d 247
    , 259 (Pa. 2015)
    (emphasis added).
    After reviewing the Ordinance and the applicable law, this Court
    concludes that the Ordinance is an invalid usurpation of the General Assembly’s
    power involving the conduct of elections and undermines the Elections Board’s
    responsibilities with respect to elections by establishing a Voting Process Review
    Commission which not only reviews the election process, but also determines how
    and when new voting machines are funded, and specifies a particular time when
    County Council shall issue a referendum involving new voting machines.
    10
    “Although the [SCA] does not apply expressly to . . . ordinances, the principles contained
    in [the SCA] are followed in construing a[n] . . . ordinance.” Trojnacki v. Bd. of Supervisors
    Solebury Twp., 
    842 A.2d 503
    , 509 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (quoting Tobin v. Radnor Twp. Bd. of
    Comm’rs, 
    597 A.2d 1258
    , 1264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)).
    15
    Consequently, “[b]ecause of the significant provisions found to violate the
    [Administrative Code and the HRC&OPL], which clearly express the intent of the
    [Ordinance] that [it involves the conduct of elections], . . . [this Court] find[s] the
    remaining unoffending provisions of [the Ordinance] are incapable of being
    severed[.]” 
    Id. at 262.
                 For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.
    ___________________________
    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
    16
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    In Re: Petition for Agenda Initiative     :
    to Place on the Agenda of a Regular       :
    Meeting of County Council for             :
    Consideration and Vote a Proposed         :
    Ordinance Amending Part 12,               :
    Government Review, of the                 :
    Administrative Code of Allegheny          :
    County to Add Article 1205, Voting        :
    Process Review Commission                 :
    :
    Appeal of: OpenPittsburgh.Org,            :
    Black Political Empowerment Project,      :
    Tim Stevens, David M. Brown,              :
    William Lawrence III, and                 :   No. 451 C.D. 2018
    Mirsada Begovic                           :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2019, the Allegheny County
    Common Pleas Court’s March 15, 2018 order is affirmed.
    ___________________________
    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge