Am I missing something, or do our state legislators have much more important work to do than tinkering with the wording of a state constitutional question?

You might remember that we voters were to be asked in the spring primaries whether we favored raising the retirement age for members of the judiciary from 70 to 75.Just weeks before the election, the General Assembly decided that the wording of the ballot question would confuse us voters, so even though the official ballots were already printed, it was ruled that the vote would be invalidated. The legislators in their infinite wisdom decided the wording should not include the fact that judiciary must now retire at the end of December following their 70th birthday.Of course, a lot of voters didn’t know about the legal shenanigans and cast ballots anyway. By the way, the vote was 51-49 percent in opposition to the change. No matter, though, it didn’t count.When I saw the original ballot question advertised in local newspapers, as it must by law, I thought, “That’s straightforward.” In fact, I planned to go to the polls last April even though I am a registered nonpartisan and couldn’t vote for candidates from either major party. All registered voters can vote on ballot questions.Once the lawsuit was filed and the decision was made to invalidate the results, I stayed home as I typically do during primaries. On those few occasions when I have voted in primaries, it was for important ballot questions. (I have, however, voted in all 56 general elections since my 21st birthday. The legal age to vote in 1960 was 21, not 18 as it is now.)So, now, on Nov. 8, the question will be back on the ballot in this form: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?”Here is the way the original question was stated: “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?”Do you find the original wording confusing? I certainly don’t, and I can’t for the life of me understand how most voters might find this difficult to understand. In fact, the newly worded question, by eliminating the reference to age 70, does not give the voter a reference point to make a judgment.The state spent about $1.3 million advertising the amendments for the primaries on April 26 — for nothing. This advertising is now being repeated for the reworded amendment for the Nov. 8 general election. This amount does not include the cost to counties of printing ballots with the original wording on them for the primaries.If passed, the proposal will affect 20 judges at different levels in Pennsylvania, including Supreme Court Justices Thomas Saylor and Max Baer, Lackawanna County President Judge Thomas Munley and Luzerne County Judge Thomas Burke Jr.According to the state, out of more than 1,000 judges in the commonwealth, 19 of them would need to retire at the end of the year if voters reject the proposal, keeping the retirement age at 70.While this controversy is swirling, three more proposed constitutional amendments are waiting in the wings. They passed the General Assembly this session and need to be passed again during the next session before they go to the voters.The most striking one would reduce the number of state legislators from 253 to 201. I am sure if this proposal gets on the ballot, voters would approve it overwhelmingly. The amendment would reduce the number of state House members from 203 to 151. The number of state senators would stay the same at 50.If this proposal survives the next legislative session, and the voters favor it, it would apply for the first time after the reapportionment of districts following the 2020 census.The amendment would require that each re-formed district be nearly equal in population and that “… unless absolutely necessary, no county, city, town, borough, township or ward shall be divided in forming a district.”I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait to vote “yes” on reducing the number of legislators.With 253 legislators, Pennsylvania’s is the largest full-time Legislature in the United States and the second largest overall. Only New Hampshire’s is larger with 424 members. Maybe in the past, when communication was fragmented and unreliable, 253 members may have been justified, but not today.Rank-and-file Pennsylvania legislators make $85,339 a year and get an automatic annual cost-of-living increase and generous benefits. Those in leadership positions make more than six figures. Each legislator also gets $175 in expenses each day the Legislature is in session or whenever business takes him or her to Harrisburg.Only California pays its legislators more — $110,113 annually — plus $176 a day for each day the Legislature is in session. By the way, New Hampshire pays its legislators just $200 for a two-year term — that’s right, just $100 a year — and no daily allowance.If there were 52 fewer legislators in Pennsylvania, as the constitutional amendment proposes, this would save us taxpayers nearly $4.4 million a year on salaries alone. Then tack on the savings from the per-diem payments. Even if we figure, conservatively, 160 trips to Harrisburg a year for each legislator, this would add up to another $1.45 million a year in savings.If we tacked on the benefits, including a super-generous pension, health care and the $20,000 annual expense account for each legislator, here is another $8.5 million a year in savings.Add them all up, and we could be looking at savings in the $15 million-a-year range, probably more.We can use the $15 million much more efficiently and effectively elsewhere.By Bruce Frassinelli |

tneditor@tnonline.com