PA Lawmakers: Smaller House Could Reduce Costs

By Caleb Taylor | PA Independent

House Speaker Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, is pushing legislation that would shrink the state House. 

Smith's House Bill 153 would reduce the size of the lower chamber from 203 members to 153, and was discussed in October during a House State Government Committee meeting. The proposal would not affect the state Senate, but if it passes the House, the Senate could amend the bill to change its size as well. 

Supporters say the reduced size of the state House would lower costs, but opponents say lawmakers' ability to help constituents would decrease with larger districts. 

Tim Potts, executive director of Democracy Rising PA, a nonprofit calling for more transparent government, said the reasoning behind doubling the size of Pennsylvania's General Assembly in 1874 was to have “a large enough Legislature” where “there wouldn’t be enough money to buy enough votes." 

But, he said, that didn’t work out, because more than a century later, lobbyists and special interests remain an integral part of the political process through their financial and ideological influence. 

And now, lawmakers backing the plan to shrink the state House say it is about cost. 

Pennsylvania has the largest full-time state Legislature in the United States. The average base salary for Pennsylvania legislators is $78,314, according to the most recent data in a 2010 report by the Illinois Policy Institute, a think tank that advocates for economically conservative policies. 

However, Potts said calls for change have more to do with the Legislature's expenses than the number of lawmakers. 

“If the Legislature were more frugal, people wouldn’t be so concerned about changing its size,” said Potts. 

State Rep. Tim Briggs, D-Montgomery, said he is a “strong advocate for...cost savings and more efficiencies” within the Legislature, but has concerns about constituent services suffering if the state House shrinks. 

Each state representative represents about 62,000 of the state’s 12.7 million people. If the number of districts were reduced to 153, each representative would have 83,000 constituents. 

“I think the larger the district, the less personal interaction you would have with people,” said Briggs. 

But state Rep. Brad Roae, R-Crawford, said constituent services would not be hindered because of modern technology, including email, social networks and texting. 

“If we had fewer legislators and...larger areas to serve, I don’t think our service to our constituents would go down. Compared to a hundred years ago when people traveled around in horses and buggies, we can cover a lot more territory,” said Roae. 

Leo Knepper, executive director of the Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania, an independent nonprofit group that advocates for conservative policies, said his organization is opposed to the measure, because it “concentrates power into fewer hands,” and members of the Legislature are not “major costs.” 

“We’d prefer to see the Legislature become part time like...Texas,” said Knepper.

The Texas Legislature meets once every two years for up to 140 days. 

Smith’s proposal would require a constitutional amendment, and would not go into effect until the 2020 redistricting process.