Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution is a lengthy process that ends at the ballot box, where voters are asked to make consequential decisions based off a few lines of text. 

That means each word included — and excluded — is critical and highly scrutinized. This year's primary is no different. 

As Spotlight PA reports, two proposed constitutional amendments that will be before voters this May deal with limits on a governor's disaster declaration powers. Each quickly drew the ire of Republicans who called ballot language written by the Wolf administration “prejudicial.” They are not alone. 

THE CONTEXT: Berwood Yost, director of the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall College, said the Wolf administration's questions use “loaded terminology” and lack context. Yost pointed to a 2016 study that proved just how much this matters in determining the outcome.

Using another controversially worded ballot question — that one about judicial retirement age — the center surveyed members of the public, each randomly given three versions of the question: one written by the Wolf administration, one written by Republicans, and another written by pollsters.

When shown the pollster and Wolf versions, the measure failed. When shown the Republican language, it passed — which is what ultimately happened in real life.