GREENLEAF BILLS
PROGRESS IN HOUSE AND SENATE
HARRISBURG – The House Judiciary
Committee approved legislation offered by Sen. Stewart
J. Greenleaf to facilitate the investigation of child
abuse cases involving children who are Pennsylvania
residents allegedly abused in another state.
Senate Bill 86, which passed the
Senate, would allow for the initiation of the
investigation by Pennsylvania authorities when the
other state's law or policy prohibits initiation of
investigations involving out-of-state children.
Current Pennsylvania law prevents the investigation of
child abuse allegations when the reported abuse
occurred out-of-state. The Greenleaf bill, which now
is positioned for a vote by the full House, was
introduced in response to a report that a child abuse
complaint "fell through the cracks" because it
occurred in a state with a policy preventing
investigations of abuse involving out-of-state
children. The other state involved in that incident
has agreed to allow its child abuse authorities to
pursue the investigation once Pennsylvania authorities
open a file on the case.
In a separate legislative action,
two other measures sponsored by Sen. Greenleaf were
approved by a standing committee. Senate Bills 217
and 216 were approved by the Senate State Government
Committee and are in position for a vote by the
Senate.
Senate Bill 217 is a proposed
constitutional amendment relating to the election of
district justices—or magisterial district judges (MDJs),
as they are now called. Under current law, MDJs who
chose to run for re-election at the end of their
six-year terms must do so in a partisan electoral
process. The proposed constitutional amendment would
require retention elections for the magistrates.
The state constitution currently
requires retention elections for other judges and
justices in the unified judicial system and the
legislation recognizes that MDJs, as part of that
system, should be free from the demands of the
partisan electoral process when they stand for
re-election. Retention elections allow voters to
choose whether or not to keep a judge in office when
the judge's term expires by a vote of yes or no.
Senate Bill 216 is another
proposed constitutional amendment relating to MDJs.
If approved, this amendment would require a person who
is not a lawyer to pass the certification examination
for post prior to filing nominating petitions to
become a candidate for the office.
Currently, the state constitution
requires that a non-lawyer MDJ pass the certification
examination prior to assuming office. This has led to
cases in which a candidate is elected to the post, but
subsequently fails the exam and thus creates a
vacancy. To prevent vacancies that may lead to delays
in the administration of justice, the proposed
constitutional amendment would require the test of
candidates before their names appear on the ballot.
Proposed constitutional
amendments must pass two consecutive sessions of the
General Assembly in order to appear on the ballot for
the state's voters to decide.
