On July 20, 2015, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling which could affect every Board of Supervisors of a second-class township in Pennsylvania. The Court held pursuant to 53 P.S. §55207, a referendum addressing a township’s change in governmental status from second-class to first-class shall be submitted to voters at the first general or municipal election occurring at least ninety (90) days after two requirements are met: (1) it is ascertained by United States census that the township has reached a population density of 300 inhabitants per square mile (IPSM); and (2) a petition seeking to place the referendum question on an electoral ballot which contains the signatures of 5% of the township’s registered voters is filed with the court.

This decision potentially affects the Board of Supervisors in every second-class township in Pennsylvania because, should a referendum be successful, a change from a second to first-class township requires the replacement of the elected Board of Supervisors with a board of five commissioners. While there are good-faith reasons why a body of citizens would choose to petition a change in status of their township, such a petition could also serve as a mechanism to eliminate an entire Board of Supervisors for any reason or no reason.

The factual background of the case is as follows. On July 28, 2014, Appellant Collette Brown attempted to place a referendum question seeking to change Concord Township’s governmental status from a second-class to a first class township on a November 2014 election ballot. On August 28, 2014, seven named Appellee electors filed objections and claimed Brown’s petition was procedurally and substantively defective pursuant to the requirements of 53 P.S. §55207.

53 P.S. §55207 reads, in relevant part:
“At the first general or municipal election occurring, at least ninety days after the ascertainment, by special enrollment or from the last preceding United States census, that any township of the second class has a population of at least three hundred inhabitants to the square mile, and after a petition signed by at least five per centum of the registered voters of the township has been filed in the quarter sessions court, the question of whether such township of the second class shall become a township of the first class shall be submitted to the voters of the township . . . .”

Appellees took the position that because the most recent United States census was tallied in 2010 and several elections had transpired since that time, the Appellant failed to submit the referendum question at the first election at least 90 days after the ascertainment of the township’s population density. They maintained the population density requirement alone triggered the 90 day time period, with the petition signature filing requirement serving merely as an additional prerequisite.

In summary, the Appellees argued that the referendum question can only be considered during the first election following a United States census which determines the township possesses the required population density.

Appellant took the position that the population density and petition signature filing requirements must both be fulfilled before the ninety-day time limitation triggers with respect to the first upcoming election. Appellant maintained that because the November 2014 election was the first election at least 90 days after both requirements had been met, the referendum question should be placed on the election ballot.

In summary, the Appellant argued that the referendum question should not be limited to only the first election following a United States census which determines the township possessed the required population density.

In Re: Petition to Submit Ballot Question to Concord Township Voters, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 1540, (Pa. July 20, 2015) the Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting the statutory construction of 53 P.S. §55207 and determining whether the population density requirement and the petition requirement were conjunctive or disjunctive of each other. Relying mostly upon the contextual language of three previous amendments to the statute and the public policy to be achieved by the statute, the Court found the two requirements were conjunctive, holding that “second to first-class township referendum questions shall be submitted to voters at the first general or municipal election occurring at least ninety days after fulfilling both the population density ascertainment and petition signature filing requirements as set forth in the statute.”

This decision stands for the proposition that a citizen may place a referendum question on an electoral ballot concerning a township’s change from second to first-class in any general or municipal election, provided that both a US census determines the township possesses the requisite population density and the citizen obtains the necessary petition signatures at least 90 days prior to the election.

This Supreme Court decision allows a group of citizens to petition for a change in township status more frequently than the release of a new United States census. In fact, provided the proper requirements are met, it may be considered as a referendum question during any general or municipal election.