May 6, 2015 4 min read

It’s hard for us to imagine a scenario in which having fewer state lawmakers is a bad thing, so we suppose we should be enthused about Tuesday’s vote by the state House to significantly cut the membership of the General Assembly. However, it’s just a first step in what no doubt will be a long, tortuous and probably unsuccessful march toward giving voters the opportunity to weigh in on the matter.

By way of background, there have been previous attempts to cut the size of the Legislature, but all have fallen short. On Tuesday, the House OK’d a bill to cut that chamber from 203 representatives to 151. A companion measure that also was approved would cut the membership of the state Senate from 50 to 37. But these aren’t like typical bills that would simply need the Senate to concur and the governor to sign off. These measures require passage by the Senate during this two-year legislative cycle, then approval again by both houses by December 2018. Then, and only then, would the proposals be put before the voters in a statewide referendum.

Supporters argue that the move to a more svelte General Assembly would save the state a bundle of money and also could improve the actual operation of the Legislature.

“Reducing the size will … make for a more efficient Legislature in building consensus,” said Rep. Jerry Knowles, R-Schuylkill, prime sponsor of the House bill. “It will also make for better discussion and clearer debate.”

The current size and cost of the Legislature is difficult to defend. Lawmakers make anywhere from $84,000 to more than $120,000. They have Cadillac-style perks and retirement plans, and they rake in even more money in the form of no-receipts-required per diems. Pennsylvania has the most expensive legislature in the country, and it is the largest full-time body of its kind, if by full time we mean folks who meet in regular session with a regular lack of regularity.

Rep. Greg Vitali, a Democrat from Delaware County argued for the status quo, saying that reducing the number of lawmakers would lead to districts that would be too large to manage.

Our response is that if and when the number of lawmakers is reduced and districts are redrawn, they should be crafted based on common sense and obvious geographical boundaries, absent the kind of ridiculous gerrymandering that has been a part of past redistricting in order to protect legislative seats for this party or the other.

Take, for instance, the 15th District, currently represented by Republican Jim Christiana. We have nothing against Christiana. He has shown himself to be a capable and thoughtful public servant. We endorsed his candidacy last fall. But his district is a joke. It starts at his home base in Beaver and travels all the way down through Washington County until it reaches the sparsely populated rolling hills and valleys of West Finley Township, hard by the Greene County line.

Some years back, colorful former state lawmaker Bill DeWeese referred to another grotesquely gerrymandered district as resembling “a supine sea serpent with genitalia pointing toward Wheeling.”

If more sensible redistricting isn’t enough, the incredible advances in communication we have witnessed over the past 20 years should also help to negate any challenges presented by larger districts. Also, if lawmakers are concerned about properly serving a greater number of constituents, they can open a couple more satellite offices in their districts. We’ll still be saving money.

While we maintain serious doubts that when push comes to shove our lawmakers will come to agreement on and vote repeatedly for proposals that go against their own self-interest, we hope that our state’s citizens do get a chance to make their voices heard in their voting booths.

And when they do, we hope they ask themselves this question: “Are we really getting our money’s worth?”