Home » Issues and Action, Legislative Interview Q & A

Come and Meet Your Legislators on February 15th 2008!
(snow date February 22. 2008)

Legislative Interviews are free and open to the public, for details, location and map, click Here

Invitees include (schedules permitting) State Senator Connie Williams (17th Senate District) view our district's map, Kathy Manderino 194th Leg. District, Daylin Leach 149th Leg. District, and Mike Gerber 148th Leg. District. The League of Women Voters of Lower Merion and Narberth has been conducting Legislative Interviews for the public since the early 1920s. If you would like to get involved in this process email us at lwv@mac.com

2008 Legislative Interview Questions approved by

The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania Board of Directors

December 1, 2007

Question 1

CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING – Will you actively support amending the Pennsylvania Constitution to require an independent commission comprised of individuals not currently employed by local, state or federal government, to redistrict both legislative and congressional districts after the decennial census?  Why or why not?

Background:  Reforming the present system means amending the Pennsylvania Constitution.  For such an amendment to take effect in time to be used for redistricting after the 2010 decennial census the proposed amendment must be first passed by the General Assembly no later than late June 2008. 

At present, congressional districts are determined by an act of the General Assembly with no input by the public in any way.  This arrangement can result in partisan gerrymandering where one party controls both branches of the General Assembly and the governorship as was the case when the current congressional districts were created after the 2000 census.  While the plan complied with the US Supreme Court’s “one person, one-vote” rule, it ignored traditional redistricting criteria, including preservation of local government boundaries.

For instance, one small municipality was divided into 4 congressional districts, essentially depriving it of real representation.  The plan was appealed to the US Supreme Court which allowed the districts to stand over strong opposition by the minority in the 5-4 decision.  The Court agreed that excessive partisanship in redistricting is unconstitutional but that no court had found judicially manageable standards to provide a remedy.

Legislative districts are drawn by a bipartisan commission that has been so dysfunctional the last two times that the legislative commission was unable to agree on the selection of a non partisan chair and one had to be appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The resulting plan has been described as a “bipartisan, incumbent protective gerrymander.”

The districts did not comply with the PA Constitution’s provisions that legislative districts be composed of “compact and contiguous territory” and that “unless absolutely necessary, no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.”  Appeals to the PA Supreme Court were rejected. 

In 2005, representatives of 28 organizations, including the League of Women Voters, concerned about the state of redistricting in the U.S., met in Airlie, Virginia. They agreed to a set of principles to guide procedures and standards for redistricting. 

The procedures they agreed to are as follows:

• Assign the redistricting power to an independent commission.
• Ensure transparency of the process and a meaningful opportunity for interested parties and for the public to participate effectively.
• Conduct redistricting once each decade, following the census, with a strict timeline for completion.

The agreed to standards (in rank order) are:

• Adhere to all Constitutional and Voting Rights Act requirements.
• Promote competitiveness and partisan fairness.
• Respect political subdivisions and communities of interest.
• Encourage geographical compactness and respect for natural geographical features and barriers.

More about the Airlie Conference criteria can be found in “The Shape of Representative Democracy”, which can be accessed at:

http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Redistricting

Question 2:

JUDICIAL SELECTION – Would you actively support an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution providing for a merit selection process for selecting statewide judges?  Why or why not? 

Background:  All Pennsylvania judges are now required to run for election on a partisan basis.  This necessitates raising funds to finance their election campaigns.  Much of this money comes from law firms who may come before the judge at some later date, giving at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest.  Business groups and organizations with an interest in the outcome of judicial decisions are also making contributions.  Some capable people have been discouraged from running for judicial office because of the need to raise money. 

Candidates for Pennsylvania Supreme Court raised a record $5 million for the 2007 contest.   Further compromising the election system is a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional some state restriction on the speech of judicial candidates meaning candidates can be more outspoken about their personal beliefs on issues that may come before the court. 

The present elective system does not prepare the voters for adequate information to make a rational decision.  Partisanship does not necessarily find the most capable judges.

The non-partisan American Judicature Society has recommended the merit selection of judges for many years. They describe merit selection as “a way of choosing judges that uses a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and non-lawyers to locate, recruit, investigate, and evaluate applicants for judgeships.”  The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants (usually three) to the appointing authority (usually the governor), who must make a final selection from the list.

For subsequent terms of office, judges are evaluated for retention either by a commission or by the voters in an uncontested election.  Currently 24 states and the District of Columbia use merit selection as their method of initial selection to choose some or all of their judges.  More information about merit selection and the history of attempts to enact merit selection in Pennsylvania can be found on the American Judicature Society website:  http://www.ajs.org/

NEW INFO ON JUDICIAL SELECTION QUESTION, 1/22/08:

TO: Local League Presidents
From: Lora Lavin, VP for Issues and Action
Re: Merit Selection Legislative Interview Question

Since drafting Legislative Interview question on Merit Selection of Appellate Court Judges we have learned that legislation will soon be introduced that would amend the PA Constitution to provide for a merit selection system. The proposed merit selection system would, if adopted be unlike merit selection systems used in other states and is quite different from previous system proposed in Pennsylvania. I know some of you have started or even completed your legislative interviews. For those of you who are still conducting interviews I have attached key talking points on the proposal prepared by Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts. This is for your information in case legislators you interview are aware of this proposal and bring it up in the course of discussion. You do not need to bring it up yourselves. Likely sponsors are Reps. Shapiro and Steil and Senator Earll.

In brief, the proposed constitutional amendment would create an Appellate Court Nominating Commission that would screen an evaluate candidates seeking appointment to one on Pennsylvania’s three appellate courts. The Commission would recommend up to five candidates from which the Governor would nominate one for confirmation by the PA Senate. If the Senate rejects the nominee, the Governor sends another nominee from the same list. If the Senate rejects a total of three nominees the Commission makes a final appointment without the involvement of the Governor or the Senate. The final appointee would be subject to retention election after 4 years.

The Nominating Commission would have 14 members, 6 of whom would be public members chosen through a process that does not involve appointment by a public official (See the attachments for more information about the selection process.) Of the remaining eight, four would be appointed by the Governor and four by the majority and minority leadership of the General Assembly. Commission member’s terms would be limited. Commission member cannot succeed themselves.
One public member would be a dean of a Pennsylvania law school, chosen by all of the deans of the remaining Pennsylvania law schools. Upon the expiration of a dean’s term, the same process will be used to choose a successor, but the successor shall be from a different law school.
The rest of the public members will be selected from nominations made by business organizations, civic organizations, professional associations, public safety organizations and unions. The Secretary of the Commonwealth will draw names of Commission members from the nominations made by the 5 organizations in each category with the highest numbers of Pennsylvania residents. The lottery will rotate among organizations in each category.
The League supports a merit appointive system for selecting judges. The details of the above proposal may change as the proposal moves through the legislative process.

League of Women Voters of PA
226 Forster Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
info@palwv.org
717-234-1576 or 1-800-564-6598 x 10
Fax: 717-234-8341
website: www.palwv.org

Question 3:

EDUCATION FUNDING – Do you support legislation that would establish a realistic minimum level of expenditures for all school districts?  How do you believe such an expenditure level should be financed? 

Background:  In late November the Pennsylvania Board of Education released the result of a costing-out study of public education ordered by the Pennsylvania General Assembly.  The study analyzed what it costs to provide all Pennsylvania students, regardless of their needs or the district in which they live, with a quality public education that allows them to meet state academic standards and assessments. 

A summary of the study’s findings in a briefing paper by the PA Education Funding Reform Campaign reports:

• $12,057 is the average level of funding required to ensure that every student reaches state standards of academic achievement.
• Base cost per student is $8,003 with additional funding needed to close the achievement gap for students in poverty, English language learners and children with special needs. The base cost amount was adjusted to further close the resource gap for districts that are growing, rural or faced with other educational challenges.
• Overall, 474 out of 501 school districts in Pennsylvania are currently spending below their adequacy levels, and Pennsylvania’s system of public education is under funded by $4.61 billion (26.8 percent more than current spending). 
• Additional revenue to improve student performance should be collected at the state level and allocated through a formula that takes into account factors such as inflation, changes in student demographics, and the resources needed to help all students meet Pennsylvania’s performance expectations and academic standards. 
• Allocation of state funds should be based on a specific dollar amount per pupil with additional funding

However, the study makes no specific recommendation for distribution of state aid – leaving that decision up to the General Assembly. 

The League supports equal access to quality public education to be achieved by participation of government and citizens at all levels and by adequate financing based on an equitable and flexible tax system. 

For additional information, please visit:   http://www.goodschoolspa.org/learn/PA_costing-out_study.php

Legislative Interviews The 2007 Questions and The Positions

Scroll or use these quick links to the questions on this lengthy page: Question 1, Question 2, Question 3, Question 4

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PENNSYLVANIA
2007 LEGISLATIVE INTERVIEWS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1.) REDISTRICTING

QUESTION 1:

a.) The current system for drawing legislative and congressional districts has been described as a system by which representatives select their voters rather than one in which voters select their representatives. For any changes to take effect in time for redistricting after the 2010 census, the process for making the required changes in the Pennsylvania constitution must begin in the 2007-08 legislative session. Would you support amending the Pennsylvania constitution to create a nonpartisan, independent redistricting commission to redraw district lines? How do you think such a commission should be selected? What criteria should it use in drawing district lines?

b.) How do you think such a commission should be selected? 

c.) What criteria should it use in drawing district lines?

THE LEAGUES POSITION: Support apportionment based substantially on population of all voting districts, with additional consideration given to compact and contiguous territory and with respect given to municipal boundaries. LWVPA supports an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that would put reapportionment of both Congressional and General Assembly districts into the hands of a nonpartisan bureau. Districts would be determined in line with the League position, and no consideration would be allowed for incumbency, party registration, or other political agendas.

BACKGROUND: Every 10 years, after the decennial census, states redraw the boundaries of congressional and legislative districts in order to meet the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. The League fully supports this principal which mandates that districts be substantially equal in population. But we also believe that redistricting should advance the fundamental purposes of representative democracy by giving the people a meaningful choice in electing their representatives and by holding government accountable to the people. Redistricting standards should protect the voting rights of minorities, promote competitiveness and partisan fairness, respect political subdivisions and communities of interest and encourage geographical compactness and respect for natural geographic features and barriers. The redistricting process as currently practiced in Pennsylvania results in districts that meet none of these standards. Instead districts are tortuously gerrymandered solely for the purpose of protecting incumbents and advancing the power of whichever party happens to be in the majority at the time. Uncompetitive elections and lack of meaningful choices results in unaccountable government and low voter turnout.

Pennsylvania’s 2002 congressional redistricting plan was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nine justices all agreed that excessive partisanship in redistricting is unconstitutional. However, the court split on whether political gerrymandering claims were justiciable because no court has been able to find a fitting remedy. In a separate opinion Justice Kennedy wrote that the Court should not give up on finding a standard. The outcome of this case makes setting a legislative standard even more important.

The League supports amending the Pennsylvania constitution to assign redistricting power to an independent commission and define a set of constraints on what is acceptable in drawing district lines. We believe the process should be transparent and provide meaningful opportunities for interested parties and the public to participate effectively.

Two constitutional amendment proposals were introduced in the last session taking different approaches to redistricting reform. Currently the legislature draws congressional district maps. Legislative redistricting is done by a five- member bipartisan commission composed of the House and Senate leadership who select a chair who cannot be a current office holder. HB1116 sponsored by Rep. Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) would have used the bipartisan commission model to draw both congressional and legislative districts. HB 2665 sponsored by Rep. Tom Tangretti (D-Westmoreland) would have created a nonpartisan state agency to handle legislative and congressional redistricting. Agency plans would be subject to legislative approval. Both would place restrictions on the criteria to be used in drawing district lines. The criteria in the Tangretti bill were tighter than in the Leach bill and included compactness, contiguousness, and respect for municipal and county boundaries and communities of interest. The agency would not be able to take into consideration political affiliation of registered voters, address of incumbents, and previous election results.

It should be pointed out that there is some disagreement with prohibiting a commission from taking into consideration such factors and political affiliation of registered voter, address of incumbents, and previous election results because this would require policing the process to a degree that would be impractical. Instead, it is suggested that process be overtly and transparently political and that all relevant information could be considered. In this case, absolute transparency of the process would be imperative.

Proposed constitutional amendments must be passed in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly before going to the voters for approval meaning that we must start no later than the session starting in 2007 to have an amendment in place for redistricting following the 2010 census. The process should begin now with joint hearings.

A related issue is proposals to substantially reduce the size of the legislature. The League believes the legislature could be made more effective by a substantial reduction in size. If there is a serious effort to do this, then redistricting reform become even more important.

2.) ELECTION REFORM

QUESTION 2:

a.) While the 2006 elections did not have the catastrophic meltdown predicted by some, reports from around the country including Pennsylvania showed the need for significant improvements. Do you think voter verifiable paper audit trails should be required for all voting systems in Pennsylvania? Would you support measures recommended by the governor’s bipartisan Election Reform Task Force to remove barriers to voting including “no excuse necessary” absentee voting and extension of the deadline for returning absentee ballots? Data on voter turnout show greater voter participation in states that allow Election Day registration. Would you support legislation to allow citizens to register and vote on Election Day?

b.) Would you support measures recommended by the governor’s bipartisan Election Reform Task Force to remove barriers to voting including “no excuse necessary” absentee voting and extension of the deadline for returning absentee ballots? 

c.) Data on voter turnout show greater voter participation in states that allow Election Day registration.  Would you support legislation to allow citizens to register and vote on Election Day?

THE LEAGUE’S POSITION
LWVUS: Protect the right of all citizens to vote; encourage all citizens to vote.
LWVPA: Support effective election laws and uniform procedures.
Registration: LWVPA supports increasing the ease and accessibility of registration.
Absentee voting: LWVPA supports simplified procedures for all qualified absent electors.

BACKGROUND:

Electronic voting. Experience with electronic voting systems has shown that these systems are not inherently secure and can malfunction. In such circumstances or in the case of a recount, paperless systems provide no independent audit trail. At the 2006 National Convention, delegates approved the following resolution:

The LWVUS supports only voting systems that are designed so that:

· they employ a voter-verifiable paper ballot or other paper record, said paper being the official record of the voter’s intent; and
· the voter can verify, either by eye or with the aid of suitable devices for those who have impaired vision, that the paper ballot/record accurately reflects his or her intent; and
· such verification takes place while the voter is still in the process of voting; and
· the paper ballot/record is used for audits and recounts; and
· the vote totals can be verified by an independent hand count of the paper ballot/record; and
· routine audits of the paper ballot/record in randomly selected precincts can be conducted in every election, and the results published by the jurisdiction.
Removing barriers to voting. The requirement to register in advance of a primary or election (30 days in Pennsylvania) is a significant barrier to voter participation. Statistically, the four states with the highest voter participation by eligible citizens are states that allow Election Day registration. Problems with the voter registration system in Pennsylvania are significant. In every primary and election there are numerous reports of people finding that their names were not in the poll books even though they had applied. In the 2006 General Election there were also reports from people whose names were not in the books even though they had voted in the same place for years. In such cases, voters are to be provided with a provisional ballot but there is no guarantee their ballot will be counted. There are also reported instances where poll workers did not offer the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot. In Pennsylvania, a significant number of provisional ballots cast are not counted, the primary reason being that there is no record that the person was registered.
Stringent absentee ballot rules are another barrier to voting. In Pennsylvania it is illegal to vote absentee without having a valid reason for being unable to vote in person. Applications must be received on the Tuesday before a primary or election and ballots returned by the Friday before a primary or election. While there are provisions for casting an emergency absentee ballot, affidavits confirming the emergency are required and this process must be completed by the Friday before the Election. This is the earliest deadline of any state in the nation. In presidential elections, under the Federal Voting Right Act, a ballot may be counted for the Office of President and Vice President if it is received by the close of the polls on Election Day. The Governor’s Election Reform Task Force found Pennsylvania’s absentee voting process “extremely restrictive” and concluded that “any registered voter should be permitted to apply for an absentee ballot.” The Task Force also concluded that “(a)n elector should be allowed to apply for an absentee ballot and vote it any time prior to an election as long as the ballot can be returned before the close of polls on the day of the election or is post marked no later than the day before Election Day and received by the county board of elections no later than seven days after the day of election.”

3.) HEALTH CARE

QUESTION 3: According to polling data compiled by IssuesPA, concerns about health care costs are “growing more quickly than concern about most other issues that challenge the future of Pennsylvania.” Health care is increasingly burdensome to businesses, large and small, to governments at all levels, and to individuals, many of whom cannot afford health insurance. Will you give health care reform a high priority in the new legislative session? Explain your answer.

THE LEAGUE’S POSITION IN BRIEF (Adopted by the National Board, April 1993): Promote a health care system for the United States that provides access to a basic level of quality care for all U.S. residents and controls health care costs. (For complete position see “Impact on Issues 2004-06”, pp. 66-69 or in the Issues page at www.lwv.org.)

BACKGROUND: Over 46 million Americans are uninsured and at least as many are underinsured. Family insurance premiums in the U.S. are averaging more than $9,500 a year (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005). The personal costs of health care is the major reason for personal bankruptcies and of those filing bankruptcy, 75% had health insurance.

According to IssuesPA (www.issuespa.net) 12% of Pennsylvanians have no health care coverage at all.

The U.S. is the only developed country that does not offer universal health coverage to its residents. Currently, health insurance is tied to employment and recently major employers have been trimming or cutting entirely their health plans. In addition people who have lost their jobs have lost their insurance.

Although many states have insurance plans that cover children there are no plans that cover all children. There are more than 9 million children (one in nine) in the U.S. who are uninsured (www.childrenshealthcampaign.org). Pennsylvania is a leader in covering children under 18 and has one of the lowest percentages of children under 18 that lack health care coverage.

In recent elections, health care was mentioned as one of the most important concerns in the minds of the electorate (second to the war in Iraq) in many national polls. Polling data compiled by IssuesPA from 2003-06, show that “individuals are growing more concerned over their ability to control health care costs, access to care, and the quality of care” and “more are now turning to state government for direct assistance in the payment of health care services.” A number of states have experimented with plans to increase health care coverage. Massachusetts recently made news by adopting a requirement that all residents purchase a state-approve health care policy. But critics say the requirement will be difficult to enforce and is unlikely to result in universal coverage. Governor Rendell is proposing a health care reform plan for Pennsylvania but the details of this proposal were not available as of this writing. However, he did say the proposal is not modeled on the Massachusetts plan.

4.)PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

QUESTION 4:

a.) According to Issues PA, Pennsylvania “ranks high in state support for public transit in comparison with other states.” But, “unlike in other states, public transit in Pennsylvania is funded mainly through discretionary funds, making funding unpredictable from year to year.” The governor’s bipartisan Transportation Reform commission has made a number of recommendations for funding improvements in Pennsylvania’s transportation infrastructure including a dedicated public transit fund. Do you support a dedicated source of funding for public transit in Pennsylvania?

b.) How should it be financed?

LWVPA Position on Transportation (adopted by the State Board in 1981 and updated in 1995). Promote energy-efficient and environmentally sound transportation systems that afford access to housing and jobs, relieve congestion and enhance the quality of life in communities of all sizes. Support predictable public funding that enables fiscally stable transportation systems to provide consistent levels of service. (For full position and background see “Where We Stand” p. 42)

BACKGROUND: Early in 2005 Governor Rendell created a state Transportation Funding and Reform Commission. In November of 2006 the Commission issued a report (www.dot.state.pa.us/tfrc) saying that the state’s “public transportation and highway and bridge systems are in crisis, both in terms of inadequate funding for operations, capital improvement, and maintenance, as well as decaying physical conditions” and that immediate action is required to prevent further deterioration. It further said that “(t)he overall financial underpinning of the Commonwealth’s transit program is weak and the program structure is dysfunctional.”

Key Factors in public transit:
15 years of stagnant funding caused shortfalls in operating revenue of $240 million annually.
Federal operating funding loss is $65 million per year.
Capital improvement funding shortfalls are $210 million per year.
Dramatic increases in fuel and health care costs impact on operating costs.
Deferred capital improvements and inability to address expansion needs cause public ire.
The 42 urban and rural fixed route systems and more than 30 community transit systems serve all of the counties in the Commonwealth. The 75% increase for fuel since 2003 and the 100% increase in healthcare since 2001 have impacted all of these systems and riders. The General Assembly’s approach of short-term fixes has resulted in agencies unable to focus on planning for the future since they cannot plan on the day-to-day business.

The Commission's key funding recommendations for public transportation were:
Establish a new dedicated transit trust fund.
Replace the existing public transportation program.
Generate additional state dedicated funding for public transportation programs by increasing the Realty Transfer Tax.
Enact local enabling legislation to raise additional local dedicated revenue.

Key Factors in Roads and Bridges:
State dedicated funding not keeping pace with increased construction costs.
State funding from the Federal Government lags behind national increase by one third with a loss of $155 million per year.
Focus on high volume roads has left insufficient resources for the secondary roads.
Lack of funding has precluded investments in technology that would help ease congestion.
Deteriorating Bridges are twice the national average. 57% are at least 40 years old and approaching their useful life of 50 years.
Insufficient funds to replace bridges can impact response time of emergency services to many communities across the state. Rough roads add to vehicle repair costs for both the public and private communities. Increased congestion has a detrimental impact on the movement of goods and people.

Funding recommendations for roads and bridges were:

Raise approximately $750 million through enactment of an 11.5 cent liquid fuels tax.
Raise approximately $150 million by increasing vehicle and driver licensing fees.
Provide an increase of $65 million for local governments by increasing the liquid fuels tax by 1 cent.
The governor and the members of the General Assembly now must consider the transportation commission’s recommendations for a long term funding remedy.

back to top of this page