This essay is part of the 50 states series About the country’s constitution. We asked state experts to dig into each state’s constitution, tell its history, identify its characteristics, and summarize its most important elements for our readers.

If the U.S. Constitution was the product of deliberations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s constitution is the product of a revolution in the streets. Born in 1776 at the height of the Rebellion, Pennsylvania’s founding documents marked a decisive break from colonial rule and provided an unapologetically radical blueprint for democratic life. The Union’s enduring legacy of constitutional experimentation, from its early embrace of popular sovereignty and expansive rights to the role of the modern judiciary as a bulwark of democracy, shows that Pennsylvania’s evolving constitutional tradition reflects and redefines the trajectory of American democracy.

Historical development and contemporary framework

Pennsylvania’s first constitution, drafted and adopted between July and September 1776, was a significant departure from colonial orthodoxy. It was not simply a reaction to British tyranny, but a radical vision of popular sovereignty and participatory democracy, filled with the revolutionary fervor of the time.

Heavily influenced by the works of Thomas Paine common senseWilliam Penn’s Quaker heritage, and the early influence of Benjamin Franklin, the 1776 Constitution established a unicameral legislature, abolished the office of governor, and placed faith in an active citizenry with broad voting rights and annual elections. The report highlighted the state’s efforts to check power from below by introducing a Censorship Council, an elected body tasked with assessing the government’s compliance with the constitution every seven years. By many accounts, and as Richard Ryerson has put it, Pennsylvania became “perhaps the most important participatory democracy in the world.”

Among its most enduring contributions was the concept of constitutional supremacy, the idea that the constitution is superior to ordinary law and is binding on both public officials and the people. This idea, which originated in Pennsylvania, later became a founding principle of the U.S. Constitution. As former Chief Justice Robert Nix Jr. put it, the intense debate over the framework for Pennsylvania’s creation “undoubtedly influenced constitutional thought at the time the federal Constitution was written.”

The 1776 Constitution lasted until 1790, but widespread dissatisfaction with the imbalance of power between branches led to the adoption of more traditional government structures, including bicameralism and a stronger executive branch. Most of the 1790 Constitution remained in place until the adoption of the current Constitution in 1968, through amendments. The current constitution officially replaced the 1874 version with the aim of modernizing governance and clarifying its structure.

Bill of Rights and Affirmative Protection

Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights predated the federal Bill of Rights by more than a decade and set the standard for a broad view of individual liberty. It guaranteed a broader voting base, limited by tax status rather than property ownership, and mandated transparency in the legislative process. Today, the Union continues to take the lead in codifying positive rights that the U.S. Constitution omits.

Although the federal constitution contains no such language, Pennsylvania’s constitution explicitly guarantees the right to vote. The federal Free and Equal Elections Clause has emerged as an important doctrinal tool for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, especially in the face of contemporary threats to election integrity. As I have argued, this provision has recently served as a bulwark against legislative efforts to undermine democratic participation. This language has been liberally interpreted to curb Congressional overzealousness in election administration, including extending deadlines for mail-in ballots, allowing inaccurate or undated ballots to be counted, prohibiting overly restrictive mail-in policies, and clarifying residency requirements for poll watchers. This liberal interpretation of the Free and Equal Elections Clause has helped prevent disenfranchisement of millions of voters in Pennsylvania.

In addition to the right to vote, the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantees gender equality through Article 1, Section 28, which states: “Equality of rights under the laws of Pennsylvania shall not be denied or abridged on account of the sex of a person.” In recent years, courts have begun to address this and other provisions to address issues surrounding reproductive autonomy. in 2024 Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Servicesfor example, the court held in a 3-2 decision that the state constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment prohibits laws that burden one sex, including prohibitions on Medicaid coverage of abortion. The court ruled that regulating conditions unique to one sex, such as pregnancy, constitutes sex discrimination under the state constitution.

This case shows how the Constitution continues to adapt to modern rights struggles.

innovation and inclusion

The Pennsylvania Constitution has long also served as a vehicle for experimentation. From the early repeal of the Bureau to the adoption of the Environmental Rights Amendment in 1971, this document reflects a continued evolution toward comprehensiveness and responsiveness. State courts have similarly embraced this ethos, transforming into “new laboratories of democracy” where judges experiment with innovative constitutional theories to protect voting rights and democratic norms. Its innovation also extends to judicial responsibilities. Unlike federal judges, Pennsylvania judges are elected by the people, are based on popular legitimacy, and are subject to direct democratic feedback. This system creates an institute democratically accountable for adjudicating constitutional, political, and policy decisions.

Governance and jurisdiction

The 1776 Constitution gave overwhelming powers to the legislature and deliberately weakened the judiciary and executive branch. Judges serve seven-year terms, but they can be removed at any time for misconduct. This imbalance proved unsustainable and led to the adoption of the 1790 Constitution, which introduced a bicameral parliament and a stronger executive. Today, the pendulum has swung sharply as Pennsylvania’s judiciary wields greater policy-making authority, from overseeing the administration of justice to intervening in election crises. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have intervened to extend voting deadlines and interpret election laws in ways that preserve voter access.

correction

Pennsylvania’s constitution is much more volatile than the federal constitution. Initially, constitutional amendments were the purview of the Censorship Council, which proposed amendments every seven years. The modern system now allows for amendments through legislative proposals. Article XI allows for a legislatively referred amendment process, giving the General Assembly exclusive authority to propose and pass amendments by a simple majority vote, and amendments must survive voter ratification through simple majority approval. This flexibility produced a living national constitution that was continuously shaped by evolving values ​​and corresponding judicial interpretations. Recent amendments and rulings have relied heavily on the Free and Equal Suffrage Clause to fend off efforts to disenfranchise voters. Notably, recent proposals such as Marsy’s Law, a victims’ rights amendment that was approved by voters in 2019 but later blocked on procedural grounds, demonstrate both the vigor and legal complexity of Pennsylvania’s amendment process.

The battle between judicial interpretation and democracy

Nothing better illustrates Pennsylvania’s modern constitutional institute than a recent incident. League of Women Voters v. CommonwealthIn 2018, the state Supreme Court invalidated the 2011 Republican-drawn congressional map as partisan gerrymandering and unconstitutional based on the Free and Equal Suffrage Clause. The decision was based on proper and independent state grounds and was insulated from federal review following the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Lucho vs. Common Cause Federal courts could not hear partisan gerrymandering claims.

The court’s actions didn’t stop there. It issued several important rulings during the 2020 election cycle. in Pennsylvania Democratic Party vs. Boock Barthe court extended the deadline for voting by mail, citing pandemic-related mail delays and emphasizing the need to “prevent voter disenfranchisement” under the state constitution’s Elections Clause. in Re: Canvas for absentee and mail-in votingthe court ruled that minor ballot defects should not automatically lead to the vote being thrown out, reinforcing a commitment to an inclusive election process.

Perhaps the most significant decision was made in 2020. Kerry v. Commonwealthwhen the Republican candidate tried to invalidate Act 77, the bipartisan law that would have allowed universal mail-in voting, after he had already lost the election. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, with Justice David Vecht warning that the challengers were “playing a dangerous game at the expense of all Pennsylvania voters.” These decisions demonstrate the evolving role of courts, not only as arbiters of constitutional meaning but also as institutional bulwarks against the erosion of democracy.

• • •

The Pennsylvania Constitution was born out of a revolution, and it remains revolutionary. Its legacy is one of experimentation: structural, doctrinal, and democratic. From its radical origins in 1776 to its role in election litigation in 2020, this document and the courts that interpret it have evolved into an architecture for upholding democratic norms. As federal courts increasingly retreat from protecting voting rights, state constitutions and state courts, particularly Pennsylvania, are leading the way in protecting and redefining American democracy. This is not only the story of Pennsylvania’s constitution, but also the future of the nation written in a federal laboratory.

Jerry Dickinson is dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

Recommended quote: Jerry Dickinson Pennsylvania’s Radical Constitution: An Experiment in the MakingSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (October 6, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/pennsylvanias-radical-constitution-experiment-making