NEW CASTLE —
Slowly but surely, a move to reduce the size of Pennsylvania’s Legislature is taking shape.
There is, however, a long way to go in this process and many opportunities to derail it.
Last week, the Pennsylvania House voted 140 to 49 in favor of a change to the state constitution, cutting the number of members in the House from 203 to 153, while the Senate’s size would be trimmed from 50 to 38.
The proposal now moves on to the Senate, which is free to approve, amend or ignore it. But any changes would require it be sent back to the House for further consideration.
As we have noted in the past, this sort of reform is open to a scattershot legislative approach. Different proposals can crop up in Harrisburg, creating cover for lawmakers who want to thwart it, while still acting as if they support reform.
If legislators pursue different versions of reform, and refuse to compromise, nothing will happen.
Plus, there continues to be steadfast opposition over any move to cut the size of the Legislature. Two House members who represent Lawrence County, Democrat Chris Sainato and Republican Michele Brooks, both opposed last week’s measure.
Their rationale: A smaller Legislature would mean less representation for smaller communities. And they don’t see much in the way of savings with this plan.
While we agree that any savings — primarily in terms of fewer legislative salaries — would be minimal, we disagree with the notion that smaller communities would have less representation under this proposal. Districts would continue to be based on population. Lawmakers indeed would have more constituents in their districts, but that impact would be felt across the board, not just in rural areas.
And we believe having fewer lawmakers would make it easier for citizens to keep track of what their individual representatives are doing. This would improve public accountability. The larger the crowd of politicians, the easier it is for them to get lost in the shuffle.
There is nothing magical about the current size of Pennsylvania’s Legislature. And smaller districts might benefit lawmakers, we’re not so sure the same can be said for citizens.
One of the down sides of small districts is that they are easier to carve out when it comes to reapportionment and gerrymandering. These tactics go a long way toward explaining the power of incumbency and the increasing unwillingness of lawmakers in both parties to seek constructive compromises to difficult issues.
When legislative districts are larger, it becomes more difficult to carve them up for purely partisan purposes.
We continue to believe that reducing the size of Pennsylvania’s Legislature has far more advantages than shortcomings. We think voters need to convey that message to local representatives.
Editorials
Our Opinion: Shrinking state Legislature has real advantages
- Editorials
-
-
Our Opinion: Pennsylvania’s primary system is controlled by parties
Should Pennsylvania’s primaries be open to independent voters? That’s an interesting question and one we have explored in the past on this page.
-
Our Opinion: State audit says city school district failed to collect from non-residents
Audit information about non-resident students who didn’t pay tuition at New Castle raises more questions than it answers. At least so far. We expect more details when the Pennsylvania auditor general’s office completes its report and the New Castle school district provides its response.
-
Our Opinion: Make the most of your power to vote by casting ballot tomorrow
So what kind of turnout will there be for tomorrow’s primary? Recent history suggests somewhere between low and lousy. This year’s elections are devoted to local races, and there are few major ones being contested in the primary.
-
Our Opinion: Privatization of county jail is worthy of examination
Generally speaking, we support government efforts to seek more efficient ways to provide essential services. So we have no problem with the decision by the Lawrence County commissioners to solicit proposals for the private operation of the county jail.
-
Our Opinion: We endorse candidates for New Castle board
The New Castle school district is often a study in contrasts. There are complaints about the district on everything from taxes to nepotism, from test scores to ethical slights. Yet at the same time, plenty of students within the district excel. It’s a tribute to the hard work of those students, their families and the educators who support them.
-
Our Opinion: You should be frightened, outraged by IRS abuse of power
When people talk about government posing a threat to citizens, a common topic these days is unmanned drones. But a more credible threat may be the Internal Revenue Service. This agency, responsible for collecting taxes and enforcing related rules, has the ability to make life miserable for the average individual.
-
Our Opinion: Our endorsements for City Council race
The city of New Castle needs help. Financially distressed and operating under Pennsylvania’s Act 47, New Castle must find ways to reverse its population loss and fiscal challenges.
-
Our Opinion: Court frowns on gerrymandering, but only slightly
Pennsylvania legislators have received the green light to put their own political interests ahead of yours. That’s a key point in the latest Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on legislative apportionment in the commonwealth.
-
Our Opinion: Study says distracted driving deaths are under reported
Suppose you operated a piece of heavy machinery at your job. And suppose it’s machinery that moves quickly with little effort. What would happen if you decided to take one hand off that equipment — while it was still in motion — and instead focused your attention on a telephone call?
-
Our Opinion: Senate seeks to give states more taxing power
Congress is taking a stab at tax fairness. At least, where states are concerned. If you’re looking for meaningful reform of the federal tax code, that’s going to have to wait.
- More Editorials Headlines
-
Our Opinion: Pennsylvania’s primary system is controlled by parties
