by Lowman S. Henry | March 14, 2006

Legislative elections, choices abound

Now it starts to get interesting.  Incensed over last year’s pay raise fiasco 591 Pennsylvanians have filed to run for seats in the General Assembly. Already a record number of incumbents, in a non-redistricting year, have thrown in the towel and retired rather than face the voters.

The challenges are across the board, and the challengers are diverse.  Rank has no privilege this year.  Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer and Senate Majority Leader Chip Brightbill have serious opposition in the primary, while House Speaker John Perzel will be challenged in the general election.  On the Democrat side, minority leader Bill DeWeese has both primary and general election opposition.

Add together open seats from retirement and the sheer number of candidates and the odds are that at least some of the challenges to incumbents are likely to be successful.  The result next January is going to be a General Assembly with a vastly different make-up.  The big question remaining is: Will it be an improvement over what we have now?

Pennsylvanians are clamoring for change, and rightly so.  In addition to their ill-fated attempt to feed more hungrily at the trough, this legislature has failed to address the serious problems confronting our state.  Property tax reform, admittedly a complicated undertaking, is bogged down in conference committee with the two houses of the legislature unable to agree on a plan.  Efforts to improve the state’s business climate have stalled, as has a proposed constitutional amendment to limit future state spending.  Having legalized slot machine gambling, the process so far has been riddled with corruption and seedy behavior – and the first quarter has yet to fall.

The failing of this General Assembly are many, so there is much fodder for the multitude of campaigns now underway.  However, change for change sake is not going to improve the situation.  There are some diligent, hard-working legislators who have labored mightily to be both responsive to the taxpayers and to bring much needed change to Pennsylvania.  To fall back on an old saw, we would be poorly served by throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Thus this tremendous opportunity for change brings with it additional responsibility for voters.  While many, in fact most, of the challengers are sincerely motivated, and many would be more reflective of their constituent’s wishes than those they seek to replace, no doubt a few nut cases have made their way onto the ballot.  Voters cannot just assume because a candidate is a challenger he or she will be better than the incumbent they seek to oust.  Voters must look carefully at the background, qualifications, and policy positions of the challengers.  They must also educate themselves on the record of their incumbent. The media must devote more time and space to covering the campaigns and candidates must be more aggressive in getting their platforms out to voters.  Then, and only then, can a responsible choice be made.  Without such due diligence this historic opportunity to make our legislature more responsive could actually result in replacing one bad situation with another.

It is, however, refreshing to witness the wave of citizen involvement in this year’s elections.  Apathy, for the time being, has been pushed aside in Pennsylvania and more people than ever are taking an active interest in the affairs of their state government.  If this level of interest is sustained the result will ultimately be improved and more responsive legislature.