TESTIMONY ON REDUCING THE SIZE
OF THE LEGISLATURE
Hearing before the House State Government Committee
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
League of Women Voters
of Pennsylvania
226 Forster Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-3220
717-234-1576
For Information: Bonita Hoke, Executive
Director
Good afternoon. I am Bonita Hoke, Executive Director of the League
of Women Voters of Pennsylvania. Thank you for this opportunity
to comment on HB1936 to reduce the size of the Pennsylvania General
Assembly.
The League believes that democracy depends upon the informed and active
participation of it citizens in government. We believe in a governmental
system that is open, representative, accountable and responsive and
one that facilitates citizen participation in government decision making.
In the early 1970s the League conducted a study of the structure and
practices of the General Assembly which resulted in a number of recommendations
for improvements to achieve the above mentioned goals. Our recommendations
included changes in the rules of procedure, greater public access to
the legislative process and a substantial reduction in size. This position
was reviewed and confirmed in 1996. We believe that together these changes
would ensure that all legislators have an equal opportunity to participate
in the process by which laws are made and would make them more accountable
to their constituents We are pleased that these issue are now getting
the attention they deserve. We urge you to move forward with legislation
to reduce the size of the House and Senate so that the required constitutional
amendment can be placed before the voters in time to take effect for
redistricting after the 2010 census. Because creating fewer seats will
result in drastic district realignment, we strongly recommend a companion
constitutional amendment to end partisan gerrymandering and legislative
leadership control over this process by assigning the power of redistricting
to an independent commission.
One argument in favor of reducing the size of the legislature is cost.
Thanks to an article published by Issues PA (July 18, 2005), we have
this information on how the cost of
operating the Pennsylvania legislature compares with that of other states.
- With 253 members, Pennsylvania is second only to New Hampshire in
the size of its legislative body. However, New Hampshire is a true
"citizen legislature" in that it meets a limited number
of days a year with members receiving sole compensation of $200 per
day while in session. When compared with its peer states, Pennsylvania
ranks first in total amount of salaries paid to legislators - 22%
higher than second-place New York.
- Although each Pennsylvania legislator's per diem for expenses is
comparable to 13 other states of similar population and geographic
size, the cost is higher because the Pennsylvania legislature is in
session and/or attending committee hearings more often
- Further, the Pennsylvania legislature's defined-benefit pension
plan, which plans have been phased out by most private industries
because of their high cost, is particularly generous for legislators
adding to the taxpayers' burden for years to come.
- The 2005-2006 budget for the Pennsylvania Legislature totals $462,012,000.
One contributing factor is the higher than normal staff-population
and staff-to-legislator rations. Pennsylvania ranks third in this
category, behind California and New York which have smaller legislator-to-population
ratios than Pennsylvania. From 1979 to 2003, the Pennsylvania legislative
staff increased 106%.
But the potential for cost savings alone should not drive the decision
to downsize. In fact, there is no guarantee that fewer legislators would
reduce costs substantially or at all. According to our sister League
in Rhode Island, which state legislature downsized in 2002, costs have
not gone down. The real question we need to ask is: Would a reduction
in size result in making the legislature more effective? In our opinion
the answer is "yes."
- Reducing the legislature would reverse the present concentration
of power that has been going on with the Senate and House leaders
for 25 years. Legislative leaders reinforce their power by controlling
funds, by contributing to members' re-election committees, rewarding
their rank and file supporters with choice committee chairmanships-and
conversely terminating these chairmanships when members vote for principle
and against leader's bills.
- To be at all effective individual legislators have to indulge in
the internal politics of the House or Senate in order to reach a level
(e.g. committee chairman, whip, etc.) where his or her voice may be
heard.
- The present size is too large for individual opinions to be considered
and for meaningful floor debate.
- A small legislature with revised rules would enable individual legislators
to share power more equitably thereby reducing the leverage of political
leaders and ensuring greater individual accountability to their constituents.
As an example of the misuse of centralized power we cite the fact that
the House Speaker has prevented lobbyist disclosure legislation which
was reported out of this committee in June, from going to the floor
of the House for a vote. Virtually every legislator interviewed by League
members in our 30 chapters around the state said they supported this
legislation. Where is the accountability if members cannot confirm their
expressed support by their votes?
Even legislators themselves have been heard to complain about the cumbersome
size of the legislature and the difficulties of "getting things
done". In an effort to assess the extent of support in the General
Assembly for reducing the size of the legislature the League surveyed
the membership last year.
As of November 16th, 55 responses had been received. Of those 28 agreed
that the Senate and House are too large, 12 disagreed, 8 were split
(Senate OK; House too large) 7 undecided. We integrated these responses
with the list of legislators who are listed as sponsors of one or more
bills to reduce the legislature (HB 1936, HB 2016, HB 2039, HB 2028,
HB 1971, SB 579 and SB 890) even if they had not responded to our questionnaire.
With these legislators included the table has the positions of 19 Senators
(16 in favor) and 85 House members (68 in favor, 4 split and 1 undecided).
Party affiliations show that support is bipartisan. Supporters of record
include three members of the Senate State Government Committee and four
members of the House State Government Committee.
The results show that there is substantial bipartisan support for size
reduction among rank and file members indicating extensive discontent
with the current system.
The argument most often raised in opposition to reducing the size of
the legislature is the difficulty of communicating with constituents
if districts are larger and that the same or greater level of staff
would be required to deliver needed services offsetting any cost savings.
Communication by and between legislators and their constituents through
the Internet should replace the need for a high level of legislative
staff. With Internet access readily available in homes, office and public
libraries, information directly from most state and federal agencies
can be accessed by citizens more easily than ever before. The PA Legislature
Web Site offers citizens direct access to information on the status
of bills, legislative schedules and copies of bills. Even senior citizens
are becoming more computer literate and can easily obtain information
for which, in the past their local legislative office may have been
their primary resource.
Action on this issue is long overdue. We look forward to with you further
on this issue.
I thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the League
of Women Voters.
