If the recent proposal to reduce the size of Pennsylvania’s Legislature has a familiar ring to it, that’s because it’s the same plan that died a political death three years ago, and there’s plenty of reason for skepticism about any success this time around. That doesn’t make it any less worthy of passage.
Rep. Valerie Gaydos, R-Aleppo, introduced a bill that would reduce the number of state House seats from 203 to 151, citing a need to reduce costs and bring the ratio of lawmakers to residents more in line with other states.
Ms. Gaydos estimates that the reduction would save Pennsylvania $4.7 million in salaries alone, and about $15 million total when benefits and perks are added.
Reducing the cost of the nation’s largest full-time lawmaking body likely would draw overwhelming support from voters, but lawmakers have repeatedly denied their constituents the opportunity to vote on such a plan. Because it would require an amendment to the state constitution, a proposal must be approved in two consecutive legislative sessions before it can be placed on the ballot. That means the earliest it could go to the voters this time around is 2023. And the bill stipulates it would not take effect until after the 2030 reapportionment.
Pennsylvania came close to doing the responsible thing a few years ago. The reduction to 151 state House seats was approved overwhelmingly in the 2015-2016 session and seemed headed for a second approval in 2018. At the last minute, former Rep. Gene DiGirolamo, R-Bensalem, introduced an amendment to also cut the size of the Senate from 50 seats to 38 seats. Senate leaders made it clear there would be no support for such a move, and the bill died -- along with any hope of giving voters a chance to weigh in.
So here we are again.
Pennsylvania has the the second-largest legislature in the country at 253 members and is one of 10 classified as full-time. It trails only New Hampshire, which has 400 state House members, but that can be a bit misleading — the members meet for six months a year and are paid $100 each plus mileage, but no per diem. By contrast, Pennsylvania’s lawmakers have a base pay of $90,335 per year — third-highest in the country — and an available per diem of $178 per day when in session.
And in comparison to other states, Pennsylvania’s Legislature is overstaffed for a state with 12.8 million residents. California, with a population of more than 40 million, gets by with 80 House members and 40 in the Senate; Florida, with nearly 22 million residents, has 120 in its House and 40 in the Senate.
In states with comparable populations, Illinois (population 12.67 million) has 118 in the House and 59 in the Senate; neighboring Ohio (11.7 million residents) has 99 House members and 33 in the Senate; and Michigan (10 million residents) operates with 110 in the House and 38 in the Senate.
One of the arguments against reducing the size of the Legislature has been that larger districts would make it harder for constituents to connect with their representatives, but technology has made it easier for elected officials to respond quickly and efficiently, regardless of physical distance.
The examples of other states show clearly that Pennsylvania’s Legislature can function with fewer members. The question is whether lawmakers will give voters a chance to make that choice. The last time voters had that opportunity was in 1968 when the current size of the Legislature was approved. A half-century later, it seems another ballot question is long overdue.
First Published: April 6, 2021, 4:00 a.m.
