Senate State Government Committee Reports

Reports provided by PA Legislative Services

HARRISBURG - (05/23/07, 10:30 a.m., Room 8E-A East Wing)

The Senate State Government Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bills 137 and 346.

SB 137 Rhoades - (PN 182) Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the PA Constitution authorizing the use of the initiative and referendum as powers reserved to the people. The legislation states that the initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them. An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of the Commonwealth a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and has been signed by registered electors equal in number to 8%, in the case of the statute, or 10%, in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. The measure would then be submitted to the voters at the next election held. Additionally, the legislation states that the referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes except urgency statutes or statutes calling elections. A referendum measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, within 120 days after the enactment date of the statute, a petition certified to have been signed by registered electors equal in number to 8% of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election asking that the statute or part of it be submitted to the electors. The measure would be submitted to the voters at the next election.

SB 346 Boscola - (PN 382) Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the PA Constitution providing for a Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Bureau for the purpose of reapportioning and redistricting Pennsylvania.

Members in attendance were Chairman Jeffrey Piccola (R-Dauphin) and Senators Mike Folmer (R-Lebanon) and Jake Corman (R-Centre).

Chairman Piccola opened the meeting by explaining that the purpose of today's hearing was to hear testimony for proposed legislation to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to provide for a Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Bureau for reapportioning and redistricting Pennsylvania and to authorize the use of the initiative and referendum as powers reserved to the citizens. Over the next few weeks, there is an opportunity for "fine tuning" the legislation before a vote in May or June, he said.

First, Senator James Rhoades (R-Schuylkill), the prime sponsor of SB 137, said that the legislation stemmed from 25 years of research on initiative and referendum, although prior legislation that he and others proposed did not pass. He pointed out 27 states, the District of Columbia, and the United States Virgin Islands have provisions within their state constitutions or statutes that allow citizens to propose laws, accept, or reject measures passed by legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Two types of initiative exist: direct and indirect initiative that could be considered. Senator Rhoades explained his bill would provide for direct initiative and referendum under certain provisions, such as requiring the initial petitioner to obtain 200 signatures of registered voters to present to the Secretary of the Commonwealth in addition to the proposed statute and administration fee. Following certification by the Secretary of the Commonwealth and summary prepared by the Legislative Reference Bureau, the petitioners must secure 8 percent of registered voters in the case of a statute and 10 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution. In addition, petition signatures must include at least 5 percent of the registered voters in each of 36 counties. Senator Rhoades also said no measure can involve religion, a proposal to name a person to hold office, or a proposal to identify a private corporation to perform a function or not have a power or duty. The General Assembly may subsequently amend or repeal an initiative or referendum statute, he said, only with a vote of two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate. He added that full disclosure of all disbursements and receipts made by all persons or companies involved will occur. "SB 137 could have one of the most profound and significant influences in restoring the citizen's faith in our state government process by changing our procedures to have our citizens actively participate in the process," concluded Senator Rhoades.

Chairman Piccola commended Senator Rhoades on his effort and then asked if spending limits should be included in the amendment or statute. There should probably be a statute to accompany the amendment, suggested Senator Rhoades, but he does not want to add two pages to the state Constitution. It should include simple language, he added. Chairman Piccola inquired if legislative staff has developed the specifics, to which Senator Rhoades replied the exact language has not been finalized. Regarding initiative, does a bias exist in favor for direct initiative, asked Chairman Piccola. It provides citizens with direct involvement in government, thereby making the legislature "move" on issues, Senator Rhoades replied. In response, Chairman Piccola agreed and said initiative and referendum will force the General Assembly to cast votes on challenging issues.

Senator Folmer commented that while it is important to keep citizens engaged, he was concerned about basic rights and asked if Article I of the state Constitution would be "off the table." "We don't need to touch liberties," said Senator Rhoades, adding that they are non-negotiable. Senator Folmer responded by saying that it is important to ensure the minority always has a vote.

Senator Corman, who also expressed support for the concept of initiative and referendum, discussed the issue of spending and tax increases that may result from ballot questions. To elaborate, he explained that California has significant proposals as ballot questions which may sound appealing to voters, but they could result in a tax increase or additional spending. According to Senator Rhoades, if a proposal comes forth that requires additional monies, the ballot question will include the cost. Will it be revenue-neutral, asked Senator Corman. It will include the funding source and the cost, said Senator Rhoades. As an example, Senator Corman said it is expected that education is funded at 50 percent, but in order for that to occur, a tax increase would be needed. The ballot question must include where the tax increase is occurring, said Senator Corman. In response, Senator Rhoades reiterated that how much and where the cost was occurring. "We must specifically lay out in referendum what the cost is and where it comes from," emphasized Senator Corman. He expressed concern regarding budget increases related to referendum if voters are not aware that they may pay higher taxes. "People will look at the issues" said Senator Rhoades , noting that voters will be informed of associated costs.

Chairman Piccola said he shared the same concerns and suggested incorporating fiscal notes, possibly researched by the Joint Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, so voters will understand the costs.

Barry Kauffman, Executive Director, Common Cause Pennsylvania, also advocated for providing initiative and referendum, noting that the state Constitution provides citizens with those powers. He mentioned a survey conducted by Common Cause, the Commonwealth Foundation, and the Pennsylvania League of Taxpayers commissioned through the Penn State University Data Center of State and Regional Affairs, 1990, revealed that 77 percent of respondents favored initiative while 83 percent supported referendum rights. Kauffman urged the General Assembly to approve the legislation, although he mentioned a few recommendations to consider to enhance the bill and ultimately place authority with the people of Pennsylvania.

Chairman Piccola asked what for Kauffman's opinion regarding the concerns brought forth by Senators Folmer and Corman. Common Cause has not taken a position on whether Article I should not be discussed, Kauffman replied. Rather than the proposal in SB 137 for direct initiative, he said Common Cause supports indirect initiative and the inclusion of fiscal notes.

Do you think the General Assembly should address other issues like the circulation of petitions, asked Chairman Piccola. Kauffman replied that in California, petition circulation has become a business, adding that he supports reasonable disclosure of disbursements. Senator Rhoades, who joined Committee members in the hearing, expressed concern about money influencing elections when special interests want legislation passed. "We need disclosure," he asserted.

Next, Sara Steelman, former State Representative and Chair of Common Cause, addressed SB 346 and specifically the issue of reapportionment and redistricting, suggesting that the responsibility to conduct the task be given to the Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Bureau, whose members are selected by the terms of the Pennsylvania Civil Service Act. Steelman made two suggestions: all redistricting would be done by an independent body and the people constituting that body would be hired to do the job because they were qualified. As a model for the redistricting process, she pointed out that Iowa could serve as a positive example for Pennsylvania to follow. Regarding redistricting, she stated the Constitution maintains that legislative districts should be compact and contiguous, equal in population, and with no political units subdivided unless absolutely necessary. Steelman also made several limitations and recommendations for SB 346.

Chairman Piccola asked what the cost is for the Reapportionment Commission employees. Steelman replied that she did not have information on expenditures. What would you consider the common principles for reapportionment, asked Chairman Piccola. Secondly, how would you rate the aspects of compact and contiguous, equal population, etc. for reapportionment, he asked. Prioritizing is not something that is done at Common Cause, remarked Steelman. However, she ranked compactness as a high priority. In response, Chairman Piccola said his legislative district is compact, although many others in the state are not. If we make them as compact as possible, we give voters easier access to their legislators, he stated.

Senator Folmer then asked for examples of gerrymandered districts. According to Kauffman, the Philadelphia region is a good example.

Senator Corman commented that current legislative seats would be eliminated with redistricting and therefore there must be agreement from parties. He further expressed concern about trying to find unbiased people and establishing a balance. Steelman remarked the reapportionment staff must be professional and motivated to uphold standards. Pennsylvania would have the responsibility to take it out of the hands of the Bureau and to allow the Supreme Court to decide. Senator Corman continued to express concern that employees may be biased and asked how we could have accountability. Steelman explained that software exists where people can check to see if bias has occurred and where it happened. "If anybody can run data, people can check it, and then citizens can make noise about it," stated Steelman.

Senator Folmer acknowledged his district is gerrymandered, specifically the parts of Berks and Chester Counties that are included. "We can never totally take bias out of the system," he concluded.

The current legislative districts are there to preserve incumbents, said Chairman Piccola. Concerning the Supreme Court, he remarked the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania is one of the "most political Supreme Courts." With Supreme Court involvement in reapportionment, it increases the power of the Court. Steelman responded by saying the Supreme Court plays a role in reapportionment, although its influence is no more or less involved than the legislature.

Lora Lavin, Director of Issues and Action, Pennsylvania League of Women Voters, also supported redistricting and initiative and referendum powers to hold the government accountable to the public. Until last year, Pennsylvania had one of the highest rates of legislative incumbent reelection in the country, noted Lavin. The League supports the legislation; however, Lavin made several recommendations for SB 346.

Considering initiative and referendum, Lavin favors providing citizens with those powers with the inclusion of certain safeguards. She suggested several areas where SB 137 could be enhanced, particularly the petition process, including the amounts and sources of money spent to support or oppose ballot measures, and implementing voter education between petition certification and placement on the ballot. In addition, Lavin remarked the League does not support executive veto of a popular initiative. The League also suggested initiatives and referendums be placed on the ballot in general and municipal election only so voter participation should be a factor in the passage of proposed changes.

Chairman Piccola noted his disagreement with only placing initiatives and referendums on the ballot in general and municipal elections, explaining that primaries are a good time to include them. "A real statewide initiative would bring people out," he concluded.

Matthew Brouillette, President, Commonwealth Foundation, spoke in support of SB 137 and SB 346 to dramatically improve systemic deficiencies in the state constitution. He focused on SB 137, which he said would "help to give life to the currently inanimate provision in Article I, Section 2 of our state constitution." He recommended the following changes:

· Encourage indirect initiative but no exclusion of direct initiative

· Lower the number of signatures for initiatives to five percent for statutory initiatives, seven percent for constitutional initiatives, and three and five percent for indirect initiatives

· Removal of the language prohibiting measures related to religion, religious practices, or religious institutions

· Removal of the language that forces the General Assembly to craft new campaign finance limits on a number of measures that appear on a ballot and qualification provisions

· Removal of limits on a number of measures that appear on a ballot and qualification provisions.

Chairman Piccola commented that he had not considered having both direct and indirect initiative. Brouillette suggested using three percent for indirect initiative in order to incentive that route to changing the constitution or enacting laws. In response, Chairman Piccola said the percentage of required signatures should remain at a high level to prevent "ballot clutter." He then asked for Brouillette's opinion regarding addressing Article I. I would support a limited Constitutional Convention, replied Brouillette, although he said there is a lack of support for it. "I'm hesitant to take anything off the table," he concluded.

Chairman Piccola then asked if current campaign finance laws apply to imitative and referendum. Brouillette remarked that he could not comment either way on campaign finance laws.

Senator Folmer posited that initiative and referendum would encourage voters to play an active role in government and promote accountability. Brouillette remarked he previously resided in Michigan and California, where term limits and additional statutes and amendments were initiated. "Those difficult issues were solved through initiative and referendum," he noted, adding that it gives a measure of control to the people.

In closing, Chairman Piccola said initiative and referendum may be the single most important tool to impact the legislative process.

Amy Richards, PLS Intern

The SENATE STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE met 2-29-06 to consider the following bills:

• HB 2054 Grell - (PN 3333) Amends Title 26 (Eminent Domain) by adding the Property Rights Protection Act which prohibits any condemnor from exercising the power of eminent domain to take private property in order to use it for private commercial enterprise. The bill further provides exceptions for the Public Utility Commission and for any statute providing for the assessment of benefits for public improvement on the properties benefited. The bill provides for the following exceptions: when public health is at stake, the condemnee agrees to the transfer for private commercial use, or the property is abandoned. The bill sets forth requirements that must be met to declare an area blighted for the purposes of acquiring single or multiple properties and limits the declaration of a blighted area to ten years. The legislation clarifies that the term "private commercial enterprise" does not include a hospital or medical center that is operated not for profit. The bill states that no political subdivision would exercise eminent domain against land that is situated in another political subdivision without the approval by resolution of the governing body of the political subdivision in which the land is situated. The legislation also requires that approval by the agricultural lands condemnation approval board would be required prior to authority of any State agency or political subdivision or municipal authority to exercise powers of eminent domain on agricultural property. To effectuate the Act, the bill repeals portions of laws that are inconsistent including the Urban Redevelopment Law. (Prior Printer Number: 2831, 3033) - The bill was unanimously reported as amended by A06981 (Lemmond), which deletes the language in the bill and replaces it with the language from SB 897, P.N. 1369. Chairman Charles Lemmond (R-Luzerne) explained the House and Senate have agreed that two bills regarding eminent domain will be enacted with one being a House bill and the other a Senate bill. Minority Chair Anthony Williams (D-Philadelphia) asked for a further explanation of the amendment. Chairman Lemmond said this amendment provides the procedures to be followed in eminent domain cases.