1Impeaching Kathleen G. Kane, Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
2for misbehavior in office.

3BE IT RESOLVED, That Kathleen G. Kane, Attorney General of
4Pennsylvania, be impeached for misbehavior in office and that
5the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the
6Senate:

7ARTICLE I

8On July 11, 2013, Attorney General Kane held a public press
9conference at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia
10to announce that she would not defend a Federal lawsuit
11challenging a lawfully enacted Pennsylvania statute. Only two
12days earlier, a civil action captioned as Whitewood v. Corbett
13was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
14District of Pennsylvania. The civil action challenged the
15constitutionality of Act 124 of 1996, which defined "marriage"
16in this Commonwealth as "a civil contract by which one man and
17one woman take each other for husband and wife" and which denied
18recognition of same-sex marriages conducted in other states.

1Section 204(a)(3) of the act of October 15, 1980 (P.L.950,
2No.164), known as the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, states: "It
3shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend
4the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their
5suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling
6decision by a court of competent jurisdiction." This is a
7mandatory duty imposed on the Attorney General, who under
8Article IV, Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is
9required to "exercise such powers and perform such duties as may
10be imposed by law."

11No court of competent jurisdiction ruled that the definition
12of marriage contained in Act 124 of 1996 is unconstitutional
13before Attorney General Kane announced that she refused to
14defend the civil action challenging the statute. The United
15States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor declared the
16Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which similarly defined a
17marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, to be
18unconstitutional on the grounds that the Federal Government
19improperly intruded upon the states' "historic and essential
20authority to define the marital relation." The Windsor decision
21in no way adjudicated whether a state statute defining marriage
22as exclusively between a man and a woman violates due process or
23equal protection of law.

24Despite her mandatory duty to uphold and defend the 
25constitutionality of a lawfully enacted statute, Attorney 
26General Kane refused to defend Act 124 of 1996 on the basis of 
27her personal opinion that the statute is "wholly 
28unconstitutional." The Commonwealth Attorneys Act allows the 
29Attorney General, "upon determining that it is more efficient or 
30otherwise is in the best interest of the Commonwealth, to
 

1authorize" the Governor's General Counsel to defend any 
2particular litigation. Attorney General Kane never consulted 
3with the Governor's General Counsel with regard to efficiency or 
4the best interest of the Commonwealth before refusing to defend 
5Act 124 of 1996 and there is no reason why the Governor's 
6General Counsel is better equipped to defend the Whitewood 
7litigation than the Office of Attorney General.

8After Attorney General Kane's public announcement in
9Philadelphia, the Montgomery County Register of Wills began to
10issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing Attorney
11General Kane's announcement to support his lawful authority to
12do so. 

13Wherefore, Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane is guilty of an
14impeachable offense warranting removal from office and
15disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under
16this Commonwealth.

17ARTICLE II

18During her public press conference in Philadelphia on July
1911, 2013, Attorney General Kane declared her opinion that Act
20124 of 1996 is "wholly unconstitutional." Attorney General Kane
21made this public statement two days after the filing of the
22lawsuit challenging Act 124 of 1996 and with full knowledge that
23several Commonwealth officials, including Attorney General Kane,
24were named as defendants in the lawsuit.

25Attorney General Kane's public declaration that the statute 
26is unconstitutional contravenes not only her constitutional and 
27statutory duty to uphold and defend lawfully enacted statutes, 
28but also her ethical responsibilities as an attorney in this 
29Commonwealth. Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
30applicable to all attorneys in this Commonwealth, bars any
 

1attorney associated with litigation from making an extrajudicial 
2statement that the attorney reasonably knows or should know will 
3be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a 
4substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative 
5proceeding. Before formally delivering the Whitewood litigation 
6to the Governor's General Counsel, Attorney General Kane made a 
7public statement that Act 124 of 1996 is "wholly 
8unconstitutional" despite the ongoing litigation and the clear 
9harm such statement would inflict on the Commonwealth officials 
10named as defendants in the Whitewood litigation and on the 
11defense of the presumptively constitutional statute.

12Wherefore, Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane is guilty of an
13impeachable offense warranting removal from office and
14disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under
15this Commonwealth.

16The House of Representatives hereby reserves to itself the
17right and ability to exhibit at any time hereafter further
18Articles of Impeachment against Attorney General Kathleen G.
19Kane, to reply to any answers that Attorney General Kathleen G.
20Kane may make to any Articles of Impeachment which are exhibited
21and to offer proof at trial in the Senate in support of each and
22every Article of Impeachment which shall be exhibited by them.