Pennsylvania Size of Legislature Reduction Amendment (2018)

Pennsylvania Size of Legislature Reduction Amendment
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic State legislatures measures
Status Not on the ballot
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

The Pennsylvania Size of Legislature Reduction Amendment was not on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.

The measure would have reduced the size of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from 203 members to 151 members. The size of the Pennsylvania Senate would have remained at 50 members.

The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Jerry Knowles (R-124), was approved in the Pennsylvania Legislature as House Bill 153 during the 2015-2016 legislative session. However, the amendment was not approved during the 2017-2018 legislative session to appear on the ballot. The amendment required the approval of the state legislature in two successive sessions to make the ballot.

The House Appropriations Committee estimated the amendment would have saved $10 million to $15 million per year.

Text of measure

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, Pennsylvania Constitution

The measure would have amended Section 16 of Article II of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The following struck-through text would have been deleted and the underlined text would have been added:

§ 16. Legislative districts.

The Commonwealth shall be divided into 50 senatorial and 203 151 representative districts, which shall be composed of compact and contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. Each senatorial district shall elect one Senator, and each representative district one Representative. Unless absolutely necessary no county, city, incorporated town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming either a senatorial or representative district.

Support

Arguments

• Rep. Mindy Fee (R-37) said, "The approach is definitely a cost saver, and it would put the ratio of lawmakers in Pennsylvania more in line with other states. But most importantly, it's a measure that allows the people to have the final say."
• Rep. Dave Reed (R-62) stated, "Constituents often tell us they want state government to scale back, but in an effective, efficient and responsible way... Moving toward a smaller, more efficient Legislature represents a step into the future and toward a better, just as responsive, state government."
• Rep. Sam Smith (R-66) said, "With technology constantly evolving, legislators can respond to constituents quickly and efficiently, while keeping more money in taxpayers' pockets. Reducing the size, and ultimately the cost, of the legislature is at the top of the list of things we can do to show constituents that we are serious about reform."
• Christopher Borick, Professor of Political Science at Muhlenberg College, stated, "As you get into bigger legislative bodies like our House, it’s sometimes harder for lawmakers to engage in discourse. So sometimes when you reduce the size, it allows for a bit more compromise."

Opposition

Opponents

• Common Cause Pennsylvania

Arguments

• Common Cause Pennsylvania released a statement opposing the measure, which said, "Changes to the size of the legislature without changing the back-room process for drawing districts, is not true reform. Common Cause Pennsylvania believes in good, efficient, and effective government, however not while diminishing the voice, concerns and rights of others. We believe this bill could actually take our commonwealth backwards and not forwards."
• Rep. Mike Sturla (D-96) stated, "Eliminating elected legislators simply gives more influence to special interests, lobbyists, and other non-elected people and organizations that influence policy."
• Mark O’Neill, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, said, "We’re concerned a reduction would erode opportunities for rural residents to have access to their elected officials — literally and figuratively."

Media editorial positions

Support

• The Delaware County Daily Times said, "We actually believe a smaller ruling body would lead to more action, a much cleaner debate, and hopefully less of the gridlock that seems to be the hallmark of Harrisburg these days. We urge the Legislature to again pass House Bill 153. Then let the voters decide."
• LancasterOnline said, "Sometimes bigger is better — a piece of pie, your high-definition TV, a first-class seat on an airplane. But sometimes bigger equals bloated, excessive and unnecessary. Such is the condition of our oversized state Legislature."
• PennLive said, "If the 62 positions were eliminated this year, state spending would be cut by $6 million with savings on salaries. That does not include benefits and other costs associated with those offices. With the state facing as much as a $1.2 billion deficit, that's an encouraging, if small, step in the right direction... In the name of savings, efficiency and public confidence, lawmakers should approve one of the downsizing proposals in this session."
• The Philadelphia Inquirer said, "Reducing the size of the House will not solve all the state’s problems. But it will eliminate one dubious distinction: Pennsylvania has the largest and most expensive full-time legislature in the country."

Other opinions

• The Express-Times said, "Downsizing the Legislature without a fairer, more independent way of redistricting is like going on a diet to squeeze into a cheap pair of shoes. If they still rub you the wrong way, what good is the savings?"

Background

Voting on State Legislature
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

Size of the house across time

See also: Pennsylvania Proposals 1 and 2 on Legislative Apportionment (1968)

As of 2018, Pennsylvania had the second-largest lower house of a state legislature in the United States. At 203 members, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was only surpassed by the 400-member New Hampshire House of Representatives.

The state's first constitution, ratified in 1790, authorized the house of representatives to contain between 60 and 100 members, with each county having at least one representative. In 1874, the state adopted a new constitution, which redesigned the house of representatives to contain at minimum 200 members. The size of the house peaked between 1955 and 1963, when the lower chamber had 210 members. Following a constitutional convention in the 1960s, Pennsylvania referred Proposals 1 and 2 to the April 23, 1968, ballot. Proposals 1 and 2 were designed to cap the size of the Pennsylvania Legislature at 50 senators and 203 representatives. Voters approved the change, 65 to 35 percent. The size of the Pennsylvania Legislature, including the house, had remained as of 2018.

Population represented by state representatives

See also: Population represented by state legislators

Using population sizes derived from the 2010 U.S. Census, each member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives represented 62,573 residents. Under House Bill 153, the number of residents represented per state representative would have been 84,122. The table below shows the number of residents that a representative served in 2010 in each state neighboring or near Pennsylvania, and the number that would have been served in Pennsylvania under House Bill 153:

	Number of seats	Population of state	Population per representative
State lower houses	Representatives	2010	2010
Connecticut House	151	3,574,097	23,670
Delaware House	41	897,934	21,901
Maryland House	141	5,773,552	40,947
New Jersey Assembly	80	8,791,894	109,899
New York Assembly	150	19,378,102	129,187
Ohio House	99	11,536,504	116,530
Pennsylvania House (Current)	203	12,702,379	62,573
Pennsylvania House (HB 153)	151	12,702,379	84,122
Virginia House	100	8,001,024	80,010
West Virginia House	100	1,852,994	18,530

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Pennsylvania Constitution

In Pennsylvania, an amendment can go on the ballot after just one legislative session, but only if the Pennsylvania Legislature declares an emergency. In the absence of an emergency, the amendment must be considered in two separate legislative sessions.

2015-2016 legislative session

On May 5, 2015, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed House Bill 153. The bill received 139 "yea" votes and 56 "nay" votes in the lower chamber. The Pennsylvania Senate approved HB 153 on January 27, 2016. The bill received 43 "yea" votes and 6 "nay" votes in the upper chamber. The first approval was filed with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State on February 8, 2016. The legislature needs to approve the amendment again during the 2017-2018 legislative session for it to appear on the ballot. Rep. C. Adam Harris (R-82), a co-sponsor of the legislation, said, "I will be pushing and asking our leadership to bring it up for a vote preferably by the end of 2017 or first thing in 2018."

House vote

May 5, 2015

Pennsylvania HB 153 House Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		139	71.28%
No		56	28.72%

Senate vote

February 8, 2016

Pennsylvania HB 153 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		43	87.76%
No		6	12.24%

2017-2018 legislative session

The constitutional amendment was not approved for a second time during the 2017-2018 legislative session.

See also

Suggest a link

• Pennsylvania 2018 ballot measures
• 2018 ballot measures
• Pennsylvania Legislature

External links

• House Bill 153
• House Bill 253