This week the Republican-controlled PA Senate voted 43-6 to reduce the House’s ranks from 203 to 151. (HB 153 spons. Knowles) Back in May the house did the same. Currently, at 253 members (combined), our state legislature is the 2nd largest in the country. It’s also one of the most expensive.
Reducing the size of the house is something I generally support along with other essential reforms including term limits and elimination of the state pension for elected officials. Initiatives that altogether are aimed at reducing the states 60 billion dollar operating budget. Term limits and pension elimination go hand in hand, since once you enact term limits you by default eliminate the sentiment that going to Harrisburg is a career. Term limit pledges unfortunately can be broken. As we’ve seen recently in our area. Mandated term limits protect politicians from human nature and convoluted justifications to make a career out of it.
I support a paid legislature but to me the pension equals a career. Going to Harrisburg to serve is a calling not a vocation. State legislators should be paid salaries but only equal to the median income for the district represented. Today, PA legislators are, you guessed it.. among the highest paid in the nation.
203 is arbitrary.
There is no magic in the number 203; in fact the final number of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives is the result of a map drawing mistake made in 1968. The number that matters is 100,000. Over that amount of voters represented districts lose local flavor.
This proposed reduction would keep State Representative districts under 100k. (amount each represents) Right now districts stand at about 60k. Which again, was arbitrary. The proposed reduction would bring them up to around 85k. Only a 15k increase. Still in my opinion a manageable number. At this number constituent services would be maintained at a high level. High quality constituent services is the main benefit of a paid legislature. Basically we should seek a significant difference between the 250k (# a Senator represents) and the number a Representative does.
To do this requires a change of the state constitution. It’s a long process requiring both chambers approving an identical measure two years in a row. If this happens again next year the decision would go on the ballot as a statewide referendum.
Here is how local officials voted:
Senate: Boscola (D) & Browne (R) in favor of reducing size.
General Assembly: Mackenzie (R), Simmons (R), Day (R) in favor of reducing size and Schlossberg (D) against reducing size.
Update: 1/28
Having worked with both our local state Rep. and local State Sen. office I have seen no difference in the quality and level of constituent service provided. Even though Sen. Browne’s office represents 250k and Rep. Mackenzie’s 60k. Both staff’s do an outstanding job.
Question – Do you see any difference?
Also an at large county Commissioner represents about 70,000 people. So a state rep. office represents less today.