FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
07/18/2006
Back

Facts and Frequently Asked Question on Senate Bill 890(Pippy)-Reducing the size of the Pennsylvania legislature 

Senate Bill 890 creates a constitutional change to reduce the size of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in the following manner: in the Senate, the number of seats would be reduced from 50 to 30, and in the House of Representatives, from 203 to 121 (a total reduction of 40.3%).  Upon second passage of the constitutional amendment, the ballot question will be submitted to the electorate. The effective date of the bill will be after the 2010 reapportionment. 

How did the Senate and House grow to be this large? 

When the PA House first met in 1682, there were 42 members.  By the early 1700’s that number dropped to 24 and then steadily increased to 76 by 1776.  By 1855, there were 100 House members.  An 1857 constitutional amendment set 100 as the limit.  The Constitution of 1873 increased the Senate from 33 members to 50 and set the House at a minimum of 200 members.  Every county was guaranteed at least one member, regardless of its population.

The House peaked at 210 members from 1955 to 1963 – but in order to comply with the US Supreme Court ruling of “one person, one vote,” the PA Constitution was amended in 1967 to provide for 203 House members.  The Senate has been set at 50 members since 1874. 

Some citizens and lawmakers alike have expressed concerns over the increased workload and inaccessibility to their lawmakers with these new numbers. 

With the advent and widespread use of numerous information technologies (cell phones, Internet, e-mail, etc.) it is possible for a legislator to work much more efficiently on constituent services today than it was even 10 years ago.  Further, there is every reason to believe that ten years from now, new technologies will be in use that will make this aspect of the job even more manageable. 

Directly related to the number of legislators is the salary what the job commands? 

 Pennsylvania is one of four states that employ a full-time legislature, the others being   California, Michigan and New York.  Currently, Pennsylvania’s legislative salaries are lower than the other three states with full-time legislatures, however the benefits package, combined with expense accounts and per-diems puts PA at #2 on the list behind only California.   

 Legislative salaries and benefits cost PA taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $25.3 million annually, or somewhere between $2.50 and $3.00 per citizen.  A decrease in the number of legislators would result in a proportional decrease in this expense to the taxpayer. 

Two peripheral issues with this bill is the census and legislative redistricting issue. 

PA population (2000) was 12,281,054.  Estimated 2005 is 12,429,616 (a 1.2 percent increase).  Projected 2010 is 12,484,487.  

Possible Savings 

Two sets of figures are provided, the first set based upon the Legislative Operating Accounts as provided in the 2005-2006 Commonwealth Budget; the second upon an overall figure established in 2005 by the Pennsylvania Economy League.  It is important to note that these savings projections are estimates. 

Scenario 1         

            In the 2005-2006 Commonwealth Budget, a total of $310,276,000 was appropriated to both Houses for operating costs ($106M for the Senate and $204.276M for the House).  On the advice of the Chief Clerk of the Senate, estimated cost savings under Senate Bill 890 would be “defensible” in the Senate between the ranges of $26.583M (25%) and $31.9M (30%).  For the House, using the same assumptions, the savings would be between $51.069M (25%) and $61.283M (30%).  These figures do not account for potential savings in other areas such as savings that might be realized for items such as leased office space, etc. 

Scenario 2 

            On July 19, 2005, The Patriot News published an article citing research conducted by the Pennsylvania Economy League (PEL) that set the General Assembly’s “cost to taxpayers” at $462 million per year.  This figure, which is $152 million higher than what is reflected in the Budget, was reached using a “multiplier” that takes into account the costs associated with pensions, reimbursement for expenses, and certain costs associated with the Legislative Reference Bureau as well as the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee.  Using the same ratios as in Scenario 1, the savings would be between $39.275M (25%) and $47.13M (30%) in the Senate, and between $76.225M (25%) and $91.47 (30%) in the House.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Home | Profile | News | Newsletters |  Issues | Urban Affairs & Housing Committee | District Info | Contact Me | Office and Staff | Senate Resources | State Resources | Federal Resources | Senior Resources | Veterans Resources | Kids Resources | Media Links | Photo Gallery | Search

2006 © Senate of Pennsylvania