Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Amendment Constitutionality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pennsylvania House rules proposed property-tax-elimination amendment unconstitutional after floor debate
Summary
The House voted to declare amendment A02188 — a proposed expansion to property-tax relief measures — unconstitutional after extended floor debate over whether the change would violate multiple provisions of the state constitution. The ruling removes the amendment from further consideration in its current form.
Harrisburg — The Pennsylvania House on March 23 voted to declare amendment A02188 unconstitutional following a heated floor debate that pitted members favoring broad property-tax relief against colleagues who said the amendment would impermissibly change multiple constitutional provisions.
Representative Solomon, chair of Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness, moved that the amendment be declared unconstitutional under House Rule 4, arguing the measure would run afoul of Article 11 and Article 9, Section 12 of the Pennsylvania Constitution by attempting to bundle multiple substantive changes into a single ballot question. "If this amendment were adopted, the ballot question would essentially ask the voters of Pennsylvania whether all taxation, assessment and valuation of real property taxes would be prohibited," Solomon said, adding that the drafting would have sweeping, unintended consequences for debt calculations in Philadelphia.
The measure’s sponsor, Representative Gillen, defended the proposal as a popular, pro-property-rights reform and asked the House to "let the people of the Commonwealth decide whether property tax elimination is workable." Gillen told colleagues he wanted to expand relief beyond disabled veterans to a broader veteran and homeowner population, arguing the change would protect property ownership and affordability across the state.
Other supporters described the amendment as overdue action to relieve rising property-tax burdens. Representative Diamond said he had "waited 11 years" to put the question before the body and urged colleagues to allow voters to decide. Opponents repeatedly raised constitutional and technical concerns; Representative Solomon warned that the amendment as drafted would strip Philadelphia of the ability to compute its debt limit.
After debate, members cast recorded votes on the constitutional question. The House Clerk recorded 99 yeas and 100 nays; the chair declared the amendment unconstitutional, ending that amendment’s path on the floor and directing that the bill, as amended elsewhere, be reprinted for further consideration.
The ruling does not change the underlying bill’s status; clerical actions noted the bill will be reprinted and returned to committee or calendar for subsequent steps. No additional amendments to the same language were adopted during the session.
What happens next: Because the chair certified the constitutional question, the amendment cannot proceed in its current form. The sponsor or others may choose to rework the language, pursue a different amendment, or pursue a standalone constitutional amendment with separate procedure. The House proceeded to other business after the ruling.
