In the past few weeks chatter among elected officials and some reform-minded activists has increased that a Constitutional Convention should be called in order to make some changes to the Pennsylvania Constitution.  Both Reformers and Establishment politicos all seem to be of the conviction that the only way to resolve some long standing behavioral problems within the state legislature in particular and state government in general is to effect the constitutional equivalent of a smack down.

From this writer's perspective, the jury is still out on whether or not the state legislature should call for a Constitutional Convention.  For on the one hand, a Convention would be an ideal forum for the people to make a number of important changes in terms of how business should be conducted in Pennsylvania in one fell swoop without having to go through a burdensome amendment process for each and every reform that this state desperately needs.  The number of years needed to impose legislative term limits, establish independent financial audits of the legislature, and eliminate wasteful legislative perks would be reduced drastically.  On the other hand, a Constitutional Convention in the hands of the wrong people - particularly career politicians and political activists - can be a very dangerous thing, and could have dire consequences on Pennsylvania for years to come.

What is of genuine concern to this writer, though, is the fact that a number of advocates of a Constitutional Convention - including politicians on the right and the left - are trying to advance the notion that there should be a reduction in the size of the state legislature, and are using that issue as a fulcrum for a public demand for a Convention.  Indeed, even some compatriots in the Reform movement are beginning to talk about a re-sizing of the legislature as a viable reform-oriented agenda item.

The ugly reality is, though, that reducing the size of the state legislature would be a terrible mistake for Pennsylvania, and for three reasons. 

First, if the size of the legislature is reduced large sections of this state will become disenfranchised and legislative power will be consolidated in the hands of Pennsylvania's two major urban areas - Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.  The reason for this is very simple: all of Pennsylvania's legislative districts - both in the state House and in the state Senate - are drawn based purely upon population.  If the size of the legislature is reduced, that means less populated areas if the state will lose representation while more heavily populated areas will retain their representation, or even possibly gain representation.

After all, if the state Senate has ten seats eliminated (which is about 20% of that chamber), where will those lost seats come from?  Can one honestly expect that rural districts will be able to retain their state Senator?  The answer is "No" - precisely because state Senate districts, unlike their counterparts in the US Senate, are dependent upon population.  If anything, rural districts will have to be consolidated into even larger districts in order to allow more populated areas to properly reflect their own heavier population bases.

Second, if the legislature is reduced in size, then there will be an even greater consolidation of power into the hands of a few - especially among the "leadership" of the respective parties. 

Stop and consider for a moment: Is it easier to control and influence a large group of people or a small group of people?  The reality is that the smaller the group of people, the less resistance there is to control by one or a handful of "leaders."  And the reason is simply: most people - especially elected officials - just want to get along with other people. They don't want to make waves; they don't want to 'disrupt' anything, especially if their small, elite groups of fellow politicians have all come to a "consensus" on a given issue.  Indeed, that's exactly why Pennsylvania hasn't had any real property tax reform - because a small group of people in leadership positions within both the Republican and Democrat Parties have managed to get almost everyone to agree that real tax reform cannot be accomplished - and those few who do advocate real reform end up getting boxed out of the process. 

So, if there is an abusive consolidation of power already present in a state House with over 200 members, how can anyone honestly expect that a smaller legislature will make it easier for good, productive legislation to come out of Harrisburg?

Third, a smaller legislature will make it even easier for incumbents and/or the party machines to control those seats.

Consider the 30th state Senate district of state Senator John Eichelberger.  How many counties does it encompass?  Four?  Five?  It was a tough trick for Eichelberger to challenge and run against fellow Republican Bob Jubelirer for that seat last year due to the sheer physical size of that district; can you imagine how much more difficult it would have been for Eichelberger had the legislature been smaller, which would have meant that the district would have been that much bigger?

Or consider the 48th state Senate district of Mike Folmer, which had been gerrymandered to fit the designs of former state Senator David J. "Chip" Brightbill.  It includes all of Lebanon County and bits and pieces of four other counties.  It was a huge task for Folmer's campaign to make its presence known each of those counties.  How much more difficult would it have been had the state Senate been smaller and the districts larger?

Had it not been for a strong core of volunteers who worked for Eichelberger and Folmer, the task of unseating long-time, entrenched incumbents would have been even harder, and all that much more riskier. 

Why, then should we believe that larger legislative districts (a natural consequence of a smaller legislature) would make it any easier for a challenger to take on an incumbent - either in the Primary or in the General Election?  Indeed, in those regions where either the Republican or Democrat Party is dominate (as in Lancaster and Philadelphia counties, respectively), how can it be suggested that an unendorsed candidate would have a better chance at defeating an incumbent? If anything, larger districts lend themselves to greater influence by the party machines because they are 'built-in' entities; they are already established and do not require the significant grassroots networks that political challengers would need.

Mention hasn't even been made of how a smaller legislature will naturally mean even more money in our political process.  After all, a larger district will necessarily require more money in order to promote a candidate, thus leading to more expensive and extravagant campaigns.  Brightbill spent roughly a million dollars in his bid to retain his state Senate seat last year; how much more would have been spent had the 48th district been just 20% larger? 

And what of all of those nefarious lobbyists floating around Harrisburg?  Would not a small legislature automatically mean more money to buy fewer votes?  If anything, a smaller Pennsylvania legislature would be a lobbyist’s fantasy come true!

No one can question the good intentions of those reform-minded individuals who have been enamored with the idea of a smaller legislature.  The simply fact is that on the surface, and in light of all of the corruption rampant in Harrisburg, a smaller legislature has the appeal of a silver bullet to a man being stalked by a werewolf.

Unfortunately, a smaller legislature is actually fraught with great danger for future generations, and is as effective as a silver bullet is to that monster lurking in the shadows - which is, in actuality, not a werewolf but a vampire.  If we want to kill the beast, we need drive a stake into it's heart, and that means addressing the root causes of the problems, not measures which will feel good now and endanger us tomorrow.