Just say no
Lawmakers who continue to hold office between the time of their defeat and the inauguration of their successors are known as lame ducks.
In Pennsylvania, that happens every other year with legislative elections being held early in November and the official closure of a legislative session on Nov. 30.
For years, the Pennsylvania Legislature met during that time in what were called lame-duck sessions. In 2002, the Legislature passed 103 of its 189 bills for the year (43 percent) during that time. The number grew to 140 of 239 bills (60 percent) in 2004 before dropping to 48 of 189 (25 percent) in 2006.
Generally, the sessions fell out of favor as critics noted legislators who were defeated or who had announced their resignations could vote without any fear of facing the voters again. All sorts of back-room deals and arm twisting went on with lawmakers who were on their way out the door..
Amid concerns of legislative mischief, Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, unilaterally did away with the lame-duck Senate sessions, starting in 2008.
The House continued to hold lame-duck sessions until Republicans took control in 2011 and eliminated them in 2012.
It was a great move on behalf of Republicans in both the Senate and the House, restoring some integrity to the state Legislature. Of all the reforms talked about in Harrisburg, it was one thing that had been actually done. However, there’s a chance it could all be undone next month.
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) told a reporter from the PLS Reporter website last week that he’s open to the idea of holding a lame duck session to consider “substantive legislation.” The website reported some in the Republican caucus believe the General Assembly should come back after the election to consider major items such as pension reform.
Senate Republicans are not as open to the idea as Rep. Turzai. “Our caucus is not interested in a lame duck session,” said Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-Delaware). However, he added “if there is some reason” to come back, the caucus will discuss it.
The concern is that after the election some legislator who loses might decide to change his or her vote on a controversial issue such as pension reform. It’s also a possibility that the election could change the landscape in such a way, that a lawmaker might decide to change his or her stance on a particular issue.
If leaders of the Legislature feel that more time is needed to consider such crucial issues as pension reform, the solution is simple. They should be in session more than 64 days a year. Consider that the House only met for four days in February and didn’t meet at all from May 7 until June 2 or from July 30 until Sept. 10. And even when they came back on Sept. 10, they took time off from Sept. 24 until Oct. 6. They will wrap things up on Wednesday, coming back for only one more session day this year on Nov. 12. If the Legislature had been in session more, who knows what they could have accomplished?
To try and squeeze in more time after the election would be a major step backwards for the state Legislature. Allowing legislators to vote without being accountable to the electorate is clearly wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Members of the Legislature are already under fire for not having enough ethics and principles. A lame-duck session at this point would be another huge log on that bonfire.