a requirement which ensures that only specific and narrow ballot questions will be presented to the people for their approval. See Pennsylvania Prison Soc. v. Com., 565 Pa. 526, 776 A.2d 971, 986-87 (2001) (explaining that the separate-vote requirement “acts as a safeguard to ensure that our citizenry is fully informed of the proposed amendments to the Constitution.”); id. (“[T]he focus of Article XI, § 1 is clearly upon the voter.”). By contrast, in the Convention context, our Constitution does not explicitly mandate these requirements. Indeed, if the complete revision of Article V at issue in Stander had been accomplished through the Article XI process, it almost certainly would have violated the separate-vote requirement. See Bergdoll v. Kane, 557 Pa. 72, 731 A.2d 1261, 1270 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Given the significant differences between the
holding that a single ballot question encompassing amendments to both article i section 9 and article v section 10c violated the separatevote requirement holding reimbursement to a religious institution the salvation army for emergency services expenditures permissible under article ii section 12 of arizona constitution an identical provision to article i section 11 holding that when a person entrusts effects to another and the police discover those effects in the others home by means of a search that violates article i section 9 the search also violates the entrustors rights under article i section 9 recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations holding that defendants rights under article i section 9 were violated by the failure to provide a noadverse inference instruction