Is a 1903 law governing the annexation of territory to Pittsburgh active, unconstitutional or repealed?
The confusing question is at the core of whether a petition to annex Wilkinsburg — a borough just to the east of Pittsburgh and home to about 14,000 residents — to Pittsburgh can proceed. The two municipalities already share some services, such as fire response, trash collection and schools for grades 7-12.
Several Wilkinsburg residents, including the head of the Wilkinsburg Community Development Corp., filed the annexation petition last fall. A previous petition effort was blocked last year by Pittsburgh City Council; it would have otherwise proceeded as an up-or-down ballot referendum for Wilkinsburg voters.
WCDC has provided almost all of the nearly $270,000 raised by the Wilkinsburg Action Committee, a political pro-annexation committee registered with the county. The committee’s largest expense has been $144,000 for legal services. It has also paid $35,500 to Premo Consultants, a public relations firm headed by Joanna Doven, who is running for the Democratic at-large seat on Allegheny County Council.
Various legal questions are at work in the case. A constitutional amendment from 1968 required the Legislature to pass within two years a uniform law on changing municipal boundaries. It didn’t do so until 1994, approving a law that specifically excluded Pittsburgh and Philadelphia from its procedures — a practice that is common, because the needs of Pennsylvania’s two largest cities are often slightly different than the rest of the state. The Legislature then voted last year to repeal the old 1903 annexation law that established the petition process.
Joseph James, a senior judge on the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, ruled last fall that previous annexation laws on the books were effectively repealed after the 1968 constitutional amendment’s two-year deadline came and went to establish a new uniform law. Therefore, the petition was invalid and needed to be dismissed.
The petition filers appealed, and Commonwealth Court held oral arguments Wednesday in Pittsburgh. Seven judges heard the case, in what is known as an expanded “en banc” panel.
Several residents have participated in the case as intervenors, including Pittsburgh school board member Pam Harbin. Regarding the Legislature’s move last year to repeal the 1903 law, their attorney Chuck Pascal argued legislators “oftentimes clean up the statute books by repealing things that have already been removed.”
Cliff Levine, an attorney for the petitioners, argued that the 1994 annexation law was deliberately written to leave in place a separate mechanism for Pittsburgh — the Legislature repealed many old laws but also left in place the one from 1903. He also argued the Legislature didn’t meet certain constitutional criteria when it passed a bill last year repealing the 1903 law, such as reading the bill on three separate days.
All sides seemed to chide the Legislature, noting the strange situation.
“You have to presume the Legislature knows what they’re doing,” Levine said. “Well, you have to presume that. I’m sorry, Your Honor.”
Pascal said, “I can never talk about what the Legislature intended because, that’s, anyway …”
The judges also seemed bemused by the situation.
“A very interesting question,” noted Renée Cohn Jubelier, the president judge of Commonwealth Court.
Jon, a copy editor and reporter at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, is currently on strike and working as a co-editor of the Pittsburgh Union Progress. Reach him at jmoss@unionprogress.com.
