No plans to adjust size of state Senate
By Eric Boehm | PA Independent
HARRISBURG — Republicans here have talked about reducing the size of government since taking control of the General Assembly after the 2010 elections.
This week, they took a step toward doing that — literally.
A plan to cut 50 state House representatives, thereby adding about 20,000 constituents to each House district, advanced out of the House State Government Committee on Tuesday morning with a vote of 16-8.
The full chamber in the next few weeks will consider the proposed constitutional amendment to reduce the state House from 203 members to 153, but would leave the state Senate with its current 50 seats.
To be approved, a constitutional amendment must pass the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions, be signed by the governor and be ratified by voters in a statewide referendum.
House Speaker Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, who is pushing the proposal, has said fewer representatives would yield some cost-savings, but they would be small and as yet not known. Instead, he argued the biggest advantage of operating with a smaller chamber would be increased efficiency.
“Reaching consensus with 203 people on major and controversial issues has proven more difficult in recent times,” he said.
Smith pointed out that the current number of 203 representatives came about by accident, because there was never a consistent number of members prior to the ratification of the Pennsylvania Constitution in 1967.
But opponents of the plan say a smaller number of House districts would make it more difficult for each representative to be available for their constituents and would give special interests greater control over the Legislature.
A study conducted in 1985 by the University of Minnesota found that a smaller Legislature did not decrease the number of bills introduce or the competitiveness of legislative elections. However, the study indicated a smaller Legislature would give the leadership of the majority party slightly more authority.
State Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware, voted against the plan Tuesday, because, he said, it would require lawmakers to raise more money for elections because they would have to run larger campaigns and have less contact with constituents.
“I think the problem is the unintended consequences of changing the size of the legislative districts,” Vitali told PA Independent. “If your goal is to reduce costs, I think there are better ways to do it.”
But state Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-Bucks, said changing the size of the Legislature was a good first step toward other administrative reforms, like stricter campaign finance laws and changes to the once-per-decade redistricting process.
“I’d call on the speaker to take up those issues along with this one,” he said. “No one is ever going to be able to come up with a perfect number, but I believe this will make the Legislature more efficient.”
Santarsiero was one of three Democrats to break ranks and support the bill in committee, while two Republicans opposed it, citing concerns over constituent relations in rural areas.
After this year’s redistricting process, each seat in the state House represents about 62,000 of Pennsylvania’s 12.6 million residents. With only 153 districts, each member would represent
about 83,000 people.
Each of the 50 state Senate districts represents about 250,000 Pennsylvanians, but that also could be changing.
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester, is sponsoring a bill to reduce the state Senate to 40 members and cut the state House to 161 members. That bill has yet to receive a hearing or a vote in the state Senate.
Smith has said he did not want to write a bill that included an equal reduction in the state Senate because he believed the upper chamber should decide for itself how large or small it should be.
State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, minority chairwoman of the House State Government Committee, said the bill needed further review because of the extent that it would change the dynamics of the General Assembly.
“There is a balance between the House and Senate that I think we should be careful about changing,” Josephs said.
State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, chairman of the committee, said he initially was skeptical of the plan and questionable cost-savings, particularly when the executive and judicial branches consume a higher percentage of taxpayer funding than the Legislature.
This year, the Legislature is consuming $272 million of the state's $27.1 billion general fund budget, or about 1 percent. The judiciary branch consumes about the same percentage and the executive branch consumes the rest.
Metcalfe said his opinion has changed after reviewing the proposal completely.
“I think it would allow us to serve as a role model for right-sizing government and downsizing government, two things that I have always been in favor of doing,” Metcalfe said.
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, said the bill would be scheduled for the House floor soon after Gov. Tom Corbett’s Feb. 7 budget address.
CORRECTION – This story was updated to correct the percentage of the General Fund budget consumed by the legislature.
