MAY 25, 2010

Grand Jury Demands Legislative Reform

The long-awaited grand jury report written in response to the Bonusgate trials has declared that the grossly inefficient Pennsylvania legislature needs an overhaul. The grand jury wrote, "The current hierarchy of the House is designed to bestow the vast majority of the power on a select few, to the detriment of the other members of the House, as well as the public." Presiding Judge Feudale wrote of the citizen jury, "This grand jury will not be satisfied with non substantive window dressing and/or sound byte utterances; regarding the concerns set forth in their report."

A Lancaster Online report summarizes some of the grand jury's recommendations for legislative reform:

• Eliminating taxpayer-funded political caucuses.
• Conducting a routine full, independent audit of all legislative expenses and providing results to the public.
• Becoming a true part-time legislature, with commensurate reductions in legislative salaries, staff, and staff salaries.
• Prohibiting legislative staffers working on campaigns from receiving legislative money, including pay, benefits, or contribution to retirement plan.
• Creating a standardized, annually updated written ethics policy for the entire General Assembly.
• Making the budget planning process open and transparent.
• Returning all unused budget money to the state treasury.

The report mirrors many recommendation the Commonwealth Foundation has been championing for years - such as the merit of a part-time legislature, the necessity of state spending transparency, the elimination of incumbent protection plans, and a limited constitutional convention.

posted by LEAH ACHOR | 02:25 PM | 0 comment

MAY 19, 2010

Conklin Would Serve as LG and State Rep

If the results hold, and they remain extremely close, Scott Conklin would be the Democrat nominee for Lieutenant Governor and for reelection to his PA House seat. Conklin recently promised to serve both offices if elected. While it would seem odd for Conklin to vote on legislation in the House, then cast the tie breaking vote in the senate, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

I point this out for anyone who says, "We don't need a state Constitutional Convention, we just need to enforce it. The Pennsylvania Constitution is perfect." Uh...except for the huge oversight that the Lt. Gov can continue to serve as a legislator (as is currently the case with Lt. Gov & President Pro Tem of the Senate Joe Scarnati).

Note that Conklin is a proponent of a Constitutional Convention.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:09 AM | 1 comment

APRIL 19, 2010

What Would a PA Constitutional Convention Include?

At the PA Leadership Conference, my former colleague, and now Executive Director of the Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania, Joe Sterns touted the need for a state Constitutional Convention.

In a recent editorial in the Post-Gazette, PA constitutional scholar Bruce Ledewitz urges caution regarding a state Con Con. Ledewitz raises some questions to which there are no answers - e.g. if the courts won't enforce clear Constitutional language now, why will they do so in the futures - but others concerns to which I will respond.

First, he stokes fears that our Declaration of Rights would be altered

Though most people assume that such convention action could be prohibited, no one knows that for sure.

Ledewitz identifies a number of reforms that might be discussed at a convention - Initiative and Referendum, merit selection of judges, term limits, super majorities for tax increases, and the size of legislature. He overlooks a whole slew of others, including redistricting reform, a part-time legislature, a marriage amendment, Tort Reform, and spending limits.

He dismisses I&R as a good reform, because of California - but as I've pointed out before, 24 states have I&R, and it works well in 23 of the 24. He also dismisses some of those reforms because "we have not really discussed them [Term Limits] at the state level" or "voters have not indicated a desire to make that change [merit selection of judges".

But how could they - merit selection has never been placed on the ballot, and term limits proposals are killed (by legislators whose terms would be limited) in committee without any opportunity for discussion.

That indeed is the reason to have a state Constitutional Convention. Give voters the opportunity to call a convention. Give elected delegates the opportunity to debate and vote on these proposals (current proposal would require two-thirds of delegates to approve). And then give voters the opportunity once again to vote on the new Pennsylvania Constitution.

Is that really so dangerous?

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 01:07 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 5, 2010

Four of Six PA Governor Candidates Favor State Constitutional Convention

At a forum for Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidates last week, Tom Corbett, Jack Wagner, Joe Hoeffel, and Dan Onorato all express some support for a state constitutional convention, at least on a limited array of issues (HT GrassrootsPA). Sam Rohrer and Tony Williams disagreed, suggesting that a con-con will create more problems than it will solve.

For more on how a convention might be structured, check out a Pennsylvania Citizens' Guide to a Modern Constitutional Convention.

For more on the positions of the candidates for Governor, see how they responded to our survey here.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:37 AM | 0 comment

MARCH 8, 2010

Debating a Constitutional Convention

Following Jack Wagner's announcement that he supports a Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention (he is, I believe, the only candidate for PA Governor to yet endorse a Con Con) has cause some debate on the "Pandora's Box" of a Constitutional Convention.

Joseph Collins, who blogs at Alabama in Between as well as PA Water Cooler, suggests that a convention could result in the loss of gun rights and a California-style "loose" initiative and referendum. Rep. Gordon Denlinger fears the creation of a progressive income tax and elimination of a balanced budget requirement; he also suggests there is no way to limit a convention.

Let me offer a few facts:

First, it is possible to limit a convention - the 1967-1968 PA Constitutional Convention was so limited. And there are ways to enforce such a limit, as is covered in pages 83-86 of the report Pennsylvania Citizens' Guide to a Constitutional Convention.

Second, all current proposals call for a limited constitutional conventions. The most sweeping convention legislation, Senator Folmer's SB 340, would take Article I, the Declaration of Rights, off the table. The other convention bills have even stricter limits over what may be discussed.

SB 340 would require first a vote of the people to call a convention, would elect 3 delegates per state senatorial district (thus might expect similar representation), would require two-thirds of delegates to support any change to the Constitution, and then would require voter approval of the revised Constitution.

With those limits and processes in place, it is unlikely to result in the drastic changes those on the right or on the left fear. Gun rights would be taken off the table for a convention to address, and I don't know that many of the other changes identified would get support of two-thirds of the delegates to support (and I would add that the "balanced budget provision" has little value, being as the state borrows for the capital budget, including corporate welfare, is borrowing to pay unemployment benefits, and can even borrow short term to pay its bills).

In fact, it is more likely that a Constitutional Convention would be too limited and too constrained to result in meaningful change.

Let me also address the issue of Initiative and Referendum. Mr. Collins, as do many others, cite California as an example of what to fear from I&R. But 24 states have citizen-led initiative and referendum processes, and California is only a model of what not to do. I&R would empower citizens to serve as a check on legislators.

In fact, I&R is tied to lower spending per capita and is the likely the only way things conservatives have pushed for - like term limits, a marriage amendment, spending limits and Rep. Denlinger's own part-time legislature proposal - will ever come to fruition. And for those on the left - I&R has been used for education funding reform, environmental laws, and redistricting reform.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:16 AM | 5 comments

JANUARY 7, 2010

A Constitional Convention of Crazies?

Political consultant Larry Ceisler penned an op-ed denouncing a Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. (Hat Tip: GrassrootsPA) While there are legitimate concerns about a Con Con, Ceisler addresses none of those, but instead offers ridiculous fear mongering.

You'll have a room full of tea-partiers, Moveon.org types, pajama-clad bloggers, single-issue advocacy groups and special interests.

I have respect for a lot of tea-partiers and even MoveOn types - they are true believers and follow politics closely. Bloggers and advocacy groups don't exactly scare my pants off either. And special interests? Of course, special interests like Mr. Ceisler's clients will be very interested in the outcomes of a convention. But that is no different than the lobbying that goes on today (and in fact, represents a reason to convene a convention to put better limits on the powers of government to reward special interests).

The most sweeping Constitutional Convention bill - Senator Folmer's SB 340 - would elect three delegates from every Senatorial district, with 100 signature needed to get on the ballot. And contrary to Ceisler's claim, the delegates would be compensated. This would lead to a delegation similar in ideological mix and background to ... the Pennsylvania Senate.

Either Ceisler's description of legislators should apply to delegates:

The vast majority are dedicated to serving the best interests of their constituencies - and that dedication is not determined by party affiliation.

Or his straw-man idea of a convention should describe the current legislature:

Crazies from the left and right debating sunshine provisions with representatives of corporate Philadelphia, trial lawyers and unions.

Furthermore, Ceisler's fears seem to have little basis in history. Pennsylvania has have five constitutional conventions since 1776, other states have had more. Ceisler writes,

There was a constitutional convention in the 1960s. I can actually remember it and knew some of the delegates - many of whom were the very people you'd want to be protected from.

But if the convention of 1968 was so bad, wouldn't we want to improve upon it? While many feel our current constitution is flawed, none of the previous conventions had the catastrophic effects Ceisler fears. And a Constitutional Convention would first require legislative approval to put in on the ballot, voter approval to call the referendum, (under SB 340) two-thirds of delegates to approve any changes, and voter approval again for the new constitution. This is hardly a process that would yield to "the crazies."

Ceisler also argues that we have a constitutional convention every two years in Pennsylvania when we elect our General Assembly. Ridiculous! Our current constitution says citizens have "an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their government." Does Ceisler honestly believe that this right only goes so fare as to allow election of lawmakers?

Finally, Ceisler suggests we don't need a convention, all we need is one simple reform. Changing how we draw legislative districts

A more common-sense electoral process could be achieved by drawing districts that include whole counties and municipalities and common geographic and socioeconomic factors.

If seats are drawn sensibly and competitively, primary elections won't always determine the winners, and our elected representatives will be more middle-of-the-road and responsive to the varied interests of their constituents.

Ceisler fails to realize the irony here: redistricting reform requires a constitutional change. And there is little reason to think that the General Assembly will enact such reform. Legislators have failed to act on numerous redistricting reform bills over the past few years (and would have to do so in consecutive sessions to put it on the ballot). And, of course, lawmakers are elected from the current insensible and uncompetitive districts Ceisler wants to do away with. How exactly does he think that will happen, short of a convention (or citizen Initiative and Referendum)?

For more info on a Constitutional Convention, check out the Citizens' Guide to a Modern Constitutional Convention, released by the Commonwealth Foundation with Common Cause/PA, Democracy Rising PA, and the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania Citizen Education Fund.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 08:30 AM | 0 comment

DECEMBER 13, 2009

Talking Constitutional Convention

Tim Potts talks about a Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention with Ron Morris on Pittsburgh Business Radio.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 02:23 PM | 1 comment

OCTOBER 2, 2008

Constitutional Convention in IL gets a boost

The Illinois Constitutional Convention ballot question, discussed in a previous post, got a couple of boosts in the last week.

First came news that the Cook County Assessor would support the initiative (including putting some of his campaign warchest behind it).  The article also notes that the opponents include both some business groups and teachers' and public employees', while proponents include those who want to recall IL Governor Blagoevich.  Yesterday, a judge ruled that a new ballot question would have to be created, since the first one (created by lawmakers) was deceptive and prejudicial. 

This should be of great interest for Pennsylvania legislators as they consider legislation to call a ConCon next week - which I'm certain they will do, as Sen. Dominic Pileggi wouldn't dare stall a vote those bills after calling on the PA House to stop stalling votes on other reform measures.

For more on a Con Con in PA, watch the video from our September luncheon. More on Constitutional Convention questions in other states can be found on Ballotpedia.

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 08:21 AM | 0 comment

SEPTEMBER 17, 2008

Discharge resolution on bonus ban bill

Representative Brad Roae sends us this regarding his discharge resolution for SB 986, the "Bonus Ban"

"On Monday I turned in a Discharge Resolution to pull the bill out of committee and bring it to the House Floor for action. It is considered going "over the head" of a ranking Member who is a committee chair to discharge a bill, but Pennsylvania taxpayers do not want over $3 million in bonuses being paid to legislative staffers each two year Session. Taxpayers don't like seeing that PHEAA had money for excessive employee bonuses but they are scaling back in money available to help college students. 30 other representatives signed there name after mine in supporting the resolution. House rules require 25 people and we have 31. My discharge resolution will force a vote on the bill Wednesday this week or Monday next week.

The House State Government Committee had a Committee Meeting Monday, but failed again to vote on bonus ban Senate Bill 986. That committee has had dozens of meetings and hearings in the past 11 months, but Rep. Josephs has refused to bring Senate Bill 986 up for a vote. Three bills were passed out of her Committee today and I have filed amendments to all three bills. My amendments are the wording of the bonus ban bill Senate Bill 986. One way or another, I want to make sure that we get to vote on the bonus ban bill.

The State Government Committee also has bills just sitting there dealing with campaign finance reform, ending the practice of jerrymandering legislative districts to protect incumbents, reducing the use of taxpayer funded state vehicles for personal use, reducing the cost of the Legislature, and many other reform bills. She does not want to bring about the "change" and "reform" that many political candidates and citizens are pushing for this year. I am making Senate Bill 986 my pet project for the next several weeks. I am hoping that other Members will do the same with the other needed reform bills."

posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 03:09 PM | 0 comment