Wilkinsburg-Pittsburgh merger group files for state Supreme Court review

A group seeking the annexation of Wilkinsburg with the City of Pittsburgh late Monday filed a petition seeking review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

In it, those advocating for the merger said that two lower courts misinterpreted the law and violated the separation of powers principle in doing so.

“Petitioners seek to provide an opportunity for Wilkinsburg residents to decide for themselves whether it is in their community’s best interest to join the City of Pittsburgh,” they wrote in their court filing. “As a result of the lower court opinions, and the failure to adhere to constitutional principles, they have wrongly been denied that choice.”

The state Supreme Court has discretion whether to take the case.

A group of citizens from Wilkinsburg filed a petition in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court signed by 1,243 registered voters seeking to start the annexation process on Sept. 29. It contained twice as many signatures as was necessary.

However, Wilkinsburg Council was opposed, as was Pittsburgh City Council.

Common Pleas Judge Joseph James dismissed the petition, finding that such a merger must follow the state constitution’s requirements of a referendum approved by a majority of voters from each municipality.

The group seeking annexation appealed to the state Commonwealth Court, which affirmed James’ decision in July.

The Commonwealth Court said that the 1903 Annexation Law cited by the petitioners had been repealed and was no longer applicable.

The only route to annexation, the appellate court wrote, was through referendum in both communities.

In their petition to the state Supreme Court, the citizens group wrote that the 1903 act was not properly repealed and instead was referenced in a single sentence in an unrelated bill in 2022.

They claim that the repeal of the act was unconstitutional, and therefore that annexation law, requiring approval by 5% of voters from the municipality to merge, is still valid.

In the petition, their attorney wrote that the Commonwealth Court decision threatens the separation of powers in that the judiciary is not empowered to repeal statutory provisions.

“This court’s review is necessary to confirm these core constitutional separation of powers principles and to enforce the General Assembly’s responsibility to provide the public and its members with adequate opportunity to consider amendments to pending legislation,” they wrote.

In addition, they argue that the state Supreme Court should step in to ensure there is a statute that allows Pittsburgh and Philadelphia the chance to merge with smaller municipalities.

But attorney Charles A. Pascal Jr., who represents the group that opposes annexation, said there is a mechanism that allows annexation — referendum by both communities involved.

Pascal was critical that the Wilkinsburg Community Development Corporation continues to appeal.

“The Wilkinsburg CDC should use its obviously considerable funds to improve the lives of the people of Wilkinsburg instead of continuing its very expensive legal battle to deprive the voters of the City of Pittsburgh of their right to vote on the future of their city,” Pascal said.

Seven judges from Common Pleas and Commonwealth Court have agreed the 1903 law is no longer in effect, he said.

“I am confident that the justices of the Supreme Court will come to the same conclusion, albeit after the CDC’s wasteful expenditure of many more thousands of dollars of legal fees which could be helping the residents of Wilkinsburg.”