Editorial: Did GOP lawmakers overplay hand with amendment package?
Share this post:
Gov. Tom Wolf is taking a step back and following a new path in getting a Pennsylvania court to agree that a package of amendments proposed by the state Legislature didn’t play by the rules.
The governor took the recommendation of the state Supreme Court and backtracked to take his case to Commonwealth Court instead of skipping steps with his effort to bypass the lower judges and go straight to the top.
The case in question is his challenge to the bundled amendments passed by lawmakers in both houses along predictable party lines. The bill with its five amendments would need to go through that process of approval one more time before it could go on the ballot for the May 2023 primary.
The package is important to the GOP lawmakers for the list of party issues it addresses. For many, the primary importance is the proposed abortion ban that follows up on similar laws being put on the table in other states in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, sending the decision back to the states.
But also included are proposed changes in completely different areas. One would make the gubernatorial races a package decision with a lieutenant governor candidate chosen as running mate for the top of the ticket instead of handcuffing the top nominees to each other against their will. Another would codify the issue of voter identification. There is one to boost the power of the legislators to bypass a gubernatorial veto and one more to allow for election audits by the state auditor general.
The problem, according to Wolf, is that duct-taping five different amendments together in one action prevents lawmakers from adequately and accurately voting for or against a package that does not hold legislators’ feet to the fire on individual hot-button issues such as a ban on all abortions.
It’s an idea that is no doubt familiar to Wolf. It’s the same argument the state Supreme Court made in a down-to-the last-minute decision against another amendment, Marsy’s Law, in 2019. The justices said it bucked the requirement that an amendment address just one issue, packing in a long list of changes under one umbrella.
There is a difference between a bill and an amendment, and it is certainly not a given that the court will be on Wolf’s side, but it isn’t surprising the governor is using the same argument.
Legislators could have put five different bills on the table, effectively giving themselves an opportunity for five wins instead of one. They didn’t, taking the express-lane approach to getting the job done with a one-package deal.
But is expediency the right way to go if it leaves your agenda open to a procedural loss instead of a legislative win?