A case before the state Supreme Court examines how the Legislature enacted a law that cut a cash assistance program for the poorest Pennsylvanians.
The lawsuit stretches back to 2012, when the then-Republican-controlled General Assembly passed — and then-Republican Gov. Tom Corbett signed — Act 80, which eliminated the General Assistance program.
The program supported more than 60,000 Pennsylvanians, many of whom were disabled or otherwise unable to work, with about $200 in monthly cash assistance.
Ending the program saved the state an estimated $150 million annually.
The lawsuit, which was brought by several former assistance recipients and a number of human service groups, alleges that the bill that became Act 80 was passed in an unconstitutional way — crammed full of various subjects in violation of the so-called “single-subject rule,” which says a bill can only deal with one topic. In addition to ending General Assistance, the same bill created a pilot program for 20 counties to consolidate a number of human service programs into a single block grant, changed the timing of a work requirement for Pennsylvanians applying for welfare, and imposed a tax on nursing homes, among other things.
The bill moved out of the House Appropriations Committee on June 29, 2012 — one day before the end of the state’s fiscal year — “markedly different” than the original bill, the lawsuit stated.
“Specifically, the day before it was signed into law, the dormant bill that became Act 80 was revived and amended to add multiple subjects which had no relationship to the bill’s original, very limited purpose — a purpose that had already been fully accomplished. This new, omnibus bill was not given the required three readings,” the complaint states.
A provision in Pennsylvania’s Constitution says, with a few exceptions, a bill can only deal with one subject at a time.
The state’s Commonwealth Court in 2013 said the bill did not violate the single-subject rule, because it broadly related to “the theme of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery of human services programs.”
A brief filed by the state last week asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Commonwealth Court’s findings.
“The Commonwealth Court correctly reasoned that all provisions of Act 80 are a part of the legislation’s central unifying focus on the Department’s administration of, and funding for, public assistance programs. This purpose of the bill never changed,” the filing stated.
A spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Human Services declined to comment on the lawsuit.
“I think that this statute has done a great deal of harm, and it has led to a lot of hardship in the low-income community. I think that that is a matter of great public concern, which is why it should have been considered more carefully [by the Legislature],” said Richard Weishaupt, a senior attorney at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, which filed the suit on behalf of individuals and groups including the Pennsylvania Mental Health Consumers Association and the Drug and Alcohol Service Providers of Pennsylvania.
General Assistance in most states is “a safety net of last resort for those who are very poor and do not qualify for other public assistance,” according to a 2015 review of such programs by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The review found that the number of states with such programs had fallen from 38 to 26 since 1989.
The lead plaintiff in the case, Billie Washington, had been receiving General Assistance because rheumatoid arthritis and other illnesses had left her unable to do her job as a home health care attendant. Applying for Social Security disability is a lengthy process and she had been using the program as a stopgap.
Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, had stated during his 2014 gubernatorial campaign that he would like to restore the assistance program.
If the court rules in favor of the groups suing over the loss of the program, it is unclear if the assistance would be restored, given the state’s substantial budget problems.
The state’s Independent Fiscal Office has said Pennsylvania could be facing a budget shortfall as great as $1.7 billion in the fiscal year starting July 1, without changing current policies. State officials have said in recent weeks that budget pressures mean they will close one state center for people with intellectual disabilities, and one prison, SCI Pittsburgh, a move expected to save $81 million.
Kate Giammarise: kgiammarise@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3909 or on Twitter @KateGiammarise.
First Published: January 26, 2017, 4:46 p.m.