Sen. Costa opposes lame-duck voting, seeks ban on post-election sessions
HARRISBURG — Lawmakers and Republican Gov. Tom Corbett have a mountain of work in the coming months, including the budget and a fall session before the November election.
But Democrats are focused on what happens after that, specifically the prospect that Republicans could hold lame-duck voting sessions in the month after the Nov. 4 election.
That's what prompted the Senate's ranking Democrat, Jay Costa, D-Forest Hills, to write last week to the House speaker and the Senate president to voice opposition to any post-election voting sessions.
He said the Legislature should consider banning lame-duck sessions and that at stake are “the interests of member accountability to the citizens of each district and transparency of the process.”
His call was joined by the House Democratic floor leader, Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont.
Senate Republican leaders responded with written statements of their own to say they have avoided those sessions since 2006 and that is not likely to change in 2014.
“However, as your letter properly stated, there may be cause to add session days postelection for ‘emergency situations or in limited instances where there is a compelling need,' ” wrote Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson. “If either situation you highlight arises after the general election, I will evaluate it and decide whether to recall the Senate accordingly.”
In 2010, Republicans reconvened the House and Senate to override Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell's veto of a school code bill over an exemption from property taxes for nonprofits that rent to charter schools.
A spokesman for the Senate GOP leadership said that in that case, the vote was on the same provisions the Senate had voted on, arguing it was different from a first-time vote on a bill in a lame-duck session.
But in the House that year, state representatives voted after the November election to approve significant changes to public-sector pensions, a measure that had passed the Senate in October. The House voted on a bill to expand self-defense rights by removing the duty to retreat before using deadly force except under certain circumstances.
Corbett, when asked about the possibility of a lame-duck session later this year, described the speculation as “gossip” and told reporters he had not heard anything about it from legislative leaders.
Critics of post-election sessions say they sidestep accountability to voters. In effect, a governor or lawmakers who were defeated or are retiring can make laws without facing any consequences because they will never again run in an election by their constituents.
Unlike in most states, sessions had been a biennial event in the Pennsylvania Capitol. In prior years, lame-duck sessions had delved into raising lawmakers' pay, underwriting construction of pro sports stadiums, allowing Sunday liquor sales and shifting control of the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia.
A study by the nonpartisan watchdog group Common Cause of Pennsylvania found that lame-duck sessions accounted for a substantial portion of the non-appropriations bills that passed during an eight-year stretch in the 1990s, including the deregulation of electric utilities and expansion of a prescription drug benefit for lower-income seniors.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.