This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Rep. Smith: Eliminate One Quarter of State House Districts

Analysts, however, are warning of the potential for unintended consequences.

Fewer rank-and-file members in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives would increase the flow of ideas, as all sides could be heard during debates on legislation, said the top man in the House recently. 

But a smaller Legislature may have unforeseen consequences--such as more expensive elections, more power for legislative leaders and less direct communication between lawmakers and constituents--warned some lawmakers and political analysts. 

The No. 1 reason I proposed this bill (for a smaller House) was effectiveness, understanding and the ability to communicate and build consensus,” said Speaker of the House Samuel Smith, R-Jefferson. “I think our product would be better.” 

Find out what's happening in Hellertown-Lower Sauconwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Smith presented his plan to cut the state House by 50 members to the House State Government Committee Aug. 9. The speaker said he was not “hanging his hat” on potential cost savings.

Under his proposal, more than 84,000 constituents would be in every district, up from about 62,000 in the current system. The bill would require a constitutional amendment, so voters would have to approve the change by referendum if the bill passes both chambers of the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions. 

Find out what's happening in Hellertown-Lower Sauconwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Pennsylvania has had 203 members in the state House since 1968. Smith’s bill would leave the state Senate at its current 50 members.

As a rural legislator, Smith said he had been concerned about reducing the House's size, fearing power would be concentrated in the cities. But after studying the issue, he said he no longer feels that way.

“Reducing the size of the Legislature does not change that because it would still be on a proportionate basis,” Smith said. At the same time, modern technology--such as email, virtual town hall meetings and social networking--has made it easier for lawmakers and constituents to stay connected, even in larger districts, he said.

However, state Rep. Mark Cohen, D-Philadelphia, called Smith’s plan a “terrible idea, whose time should never come.” 

Cohen predicted that the larger legislative districts would result in more expensive campaigns, forcing challengers to raise more money to take on incumbents. At the same time, cutting the size of the state House would not eliminate the influence of lobbyists or special interest groups and save any money, he said. 

Getting rid of 50 or 60 state legislators has roughly the same fiscal impact as getting rid of one high school in our commonwealth,” Cohen said. He said the savings could be even less, since more staff members would be required to deal with larger districts. 

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania make a base salary of $79,000. 

A second proposal to reduce the size of the state House to 151 members would cut the state Senate from 50 members to 40. That plan, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Reece, R-Westmoreland, would require a 20 percent cut in staff funding by both chambers. 

“The question is can our Legislature do more with less?” Reece asked. He pointed out that the recent state budget called for cuts in many state departments and most school districts. 

A third plan, from state Rep. Rob Kauffman, R-Franklin, would cut the state House by 10 members each decade for the next 50 years, with the cuts coinciding with the legislative redistricting process. It would not change the size of the state Senate.

With 203 members, the Pennsylvania House is the second largest in the nation, trailing New Hampshire’s lower chamber, which has 400 members. 

Shift in power 

After Illinois voted in 1980 to cut its state House from 177 to 118 members--roughly the same percentage cut as Smith proposed--the political power in the state shifted, said Mike Lawrence, retired director of the Paul Simon Institute of Public Policy at Southern Illinois University. 

“There is no question that after that vote, the legislative leaders became more powerful, and I meant in all four caucuses,” Lawrence said.

Lawrence, who covered Illinois government as a member of the press for 20 years, said “full-time legislators” increased and competitive elections decreased, because larger legislative districts could be drawn more creatively to favor one party or the other. 

Beverly Cigler, a professor of public policy and administration at Pennsylvania State University’s Harrisburg campus, said a decrease in the size of the Legislature would concentrate more power in the state’s large media markets, while also allowing lobbyists and special interest groups to exert more pressure on the General Assembly. 

Larger districts also would increase the cost of running for office, said Cigler, which would result in fewer competitive elections and more incumbents retaining their seats. 

History behind the number 

The current number of 203 members was set in 1968, but that only ratified the number that had been in place by tradition since the 1874 Constitution, although that document did not set a specific number. 

As a result, the size of the state House varied slightly until it was codified in 1968, said Richardson Dilworth, director of the Center for Public Policy at Drexel University in Philadelphia. 

In 1874, the state doubled the size of the Legislature to stop the influence of special interest groups, as the Pennsylvania General Assembly had gained a reputation as the most corrupt in the nation, Dilworth said. 

Downsizing the Legislature is one of several bills in a jam-packed fall agenda for majority Republicans.

The governor and top Senate Republicans plan to make a push for school voucher legislation, while Senate President Joseph Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and a bipartisan group in both chambers will pressure the governor to accept an impact fee on natural gas drilling.

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, wants to privatize the state’s liquor stores by auctioning off licenses to allow the private sector to replace the state monopoly on the sale of alcohol.

Lawmakers also must take on the legislative and congressional redistricting process to reflect the population shifts indicated in the U.S. census data, collected every 10 years.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?