A good first step toward a smaller Legislature

Thursday, January 26, 2012

We don't know whether 153 members is the best size for the state House of Representatives.
We do know, along with Speaker Sam Smith of Punxsutawney, that 203 members is too large, too wasteful of money for offices, staff, expenses, etc., and too inefficient.
So we were heartened Tuesday when Smith's proposal for a 153-member House made it through its first procedural hurdle. The House State Government Committee voted 16-8 to send the bill to the House floor.
The practical effect would be to expand each House district from about 63,000 people in size to about 80,000 in size.
It is ludicrous to expect a legislator to personally know all 63,000 people within a district, so moving the size up to 80,000 ought not to dramatically change that equation.
Yes, that would be a bit of a setback for those of us in rural areas.
But those of us in rural areas are among the first to squawk about how much it costs to support the thousands of people who work for the Legislature, and the relatively high salaries of lawmakers and senior staff.
We can't have it both ways.
A smaller Legislature should be less costly and, at 153 vs. 203, a bit more efficient.
The change, if it happens, is still years away. The Senate has shown no interest in the bill, although legislative courtesy would seem to indicate that a House-reduction bill should make it through the House before the Senate takes up the matter. And the same bill must pass two consecutive sessions of the Legislature before voters get the final say.
Tuesday's vote carries wider symbolism. In recent years, cuts have been made in many state programs.
It is fitting for the entity of government that cuts other departments, the Legislature, to include its own operations in the shrinkage. To some extent, that has already happened via staff reductions, but we think Pennsylvania would be well-served with a 50-member Senate and a 153-member House.
- Denny Bonavita