Plaintiffs in the suit are Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Jubelirer and Speaker of the House John M. Perzel. The lawsuit asks the court to order the Department of State to assign an act number to the bill, since the Governor failed to adhere to the constitutional process for vetoing a bill.

"In recent years, the state courts have in a series of rulings insisted on tougher standards for the legislative process,” said Senator Jubelirer.  “Attention to specific requirements should apply to executive action as well, particularly when that action is in fact a part of the legislative process.  This is a significant and important piece of legislation, addressing a matter of increasing community contention that needs to be resolved.  This measure, and the effort to secure legislative approval, should not be lost to what appears to be an improperly executed -- and therefore failed -- veto.”

House Bill 1222 was sent to Governor Rendell on Dec. 22, 2003, after receiving overwhelming support in both the Senate (46 to 3 on Dec. 17) and the House (134 to 53 on Dec. 18).

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the governor must deliver a veto message to the chamber from which the bill originated -- the House, in this case -- no later than 10 days after receiving the bill. In this situation, that deadline was Jan. 1, 2004.  However, the governor did not deliver the veto message to the House until Jan. 5.

The governor’s legal counsel has claimed that because the House had “adjourned” and its offices were closed, they could not deliver the veto message to the House.  However, such an analysis ignores facts of law and historical precedent.

“For at least the past twenty-five years, with the exception of [one] instance in the Ridge [A]dministration... the Governor’s Office has always contacted the House or the Senate to make arrangements for the return of a presented bill with the Governor’s objections, when their respective offices are or may be closed, and, when contacted, such arrangements have always been made,” the lawsuit states.

In that one instance under the Ridge Administration when the deadline was missed, the administration recognized that its veto was invalid and promptly withdrew the veto message.

Further, according to the court filing, the use of the word “adjournment” in this section of the Constitution has historically been interpreted to mean sine die adjournment, or the adjournment that happens at the conclusion of a legislative session -- not the much more common “recess adjournments” which happen at the end of nearly every week the General Assembly is in session.

Defendants in the suit are Pedro Cortez, Secretary of the Commonwealth, and Monna Accurti, secretary of the Department of State’s Bureau of Commissions, Legislation and Elections.

The lawsuit does not mention the contents of the bill, as they are irrelevant for purposes of this action.  The key is that no governor can be allowed to thwart clear constitutional requirements which have been in place for more than a century.  In this case, the result is uncertainty as to whether House Bill 1222 is not, in fact, law today.