To say that there is no love lost between Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and the Republicans who make up majorities in both the state Senate and House is an understatement.

For the most part, Wolf has been an effective administrator who will leave office at the end of the year with one of the most favorable economic positions that the state has ever been in.

It comes largely with much more revenue than anticipated during the fiscal year just ended on June 30 as the state rebounded from the COVID-19 pandemic, some impressive federal stimulus money and other star-aligning good fortunes which allowed the state to start the current fiscal year with a cushy $5 billion rainy-day fund.

Don’t get me wrong. Wolf has made some bad calls and not only ticked off Republican legislators but he alienated many Pennsylvanians by the draconian measures that were implemented during the height of the pandemic. The thing is, though, that Wolf was making decisions based on the best scientific information that was being circulated at the time. What Wolf did not consider fully was that these extreme measures had dire economic consequences which led some Pennsylvanians to make this the one and only referendum on his tenure.

I believe that the history books will evaluate Wolf as “better than average,” a governor who had the best interests of his constituents at heart. Of course, Republican legislators will scoff at such a notion, but this is the nature of our political polarization these days.

You can see it in so many of the legislative votes in Harrisburg. Republicans will line up on one side of an issue; Democrats on the other. There is rare agreement. The most recent example of bipartisanship was the 2022-23 budget process, which ended five days late, but which was historic in some of its provisions for education, nursing home reform and other key areas.

Much of the negotiations and compromising, however, went on behind closed doors so legislators were able to be more forthright about their views than they otherwise might have if they were conducting these sessions in public.

One of Wolf’s main problems is that he has been naive in the ways of politics, messy as they might be. He rarely schmoozed with members of the opposition party to try to work out thorny issues. That is not his style, and he has paid a price for what has been perceived as aloofness and an unwillingness to negotiate and compromise. Wolf preferred to communicate by memo, vetoes or to let department heads engage with the Republicans.

The utter frustration Republicans have had seeing many of their key legislative proposals go down in flames because of a Wolf veto had reached the breaking point. It must be said at this point that Wolf’s vetoes to head off some extreme Republican measures which surfaced especially after the 2020 election were fortuitous to spare us some really unsound policy.

Going into 2022, Wolf had vetoed 54 bills and resolutions. There have been a few more so far this year, including among the most recent involving transgender athletes and poll watchers. Wolf now has issued the most vetoes of any governor in more than 40 years, surpassing fellow Democrat Robert P. Casey’s 50 from 1987 to 1995. The record belongs to Democrat Milton Shapp (1971-79) with more than 70.

To counter the Wolf veto, someone came up with the bright idea to sidestep him and future governors by repackaging these initiatives as constitutional amendments. If history repeats itself, most constitutional proposals voted on by the electorate pass. And, the best part about it, as far at the Republicans are concerned, is that the governor can do nothing about it.

So, along with the budget, the General Assembly passed - largely along party lines (28-22 in the Senate and 107-92 in the House) - five amendments to the state constitution which could come to a vote at early as next spring if everything falls into place.

Among other things, the amendments would underscore that women have no guaranteed rights to abortion or public funding for abortion. While the amendment would not ban abortions, it would undermine the ability to challenge laws that restrict or ban abortions in the state.

The others would: Require voters to show a valid ID at the polls, require the state Auditor General to audit elections, allow each party’s gubernatorial nominee to pick his or her own running mate rather than having lieutenant governor candidates run separately in their party’s primaries. There was just one Democratic defector. State Sen. Lisa Boscola, D-Northampton and Lehigh, voted with the Republicans, because, she said, she wants voters once and for all to show their support to allow women to choose what’s best for their own bodies.

The state constitution requires that proposed amendments must pass both chambers during a two-year legislative cycle. They must then be advertised to the public. The amendments must again pass both chambers in the following two-year session, which in this case would be the 2023-24 session that starts Dec. 1. The voters would then vote on each proposed amendment separately.

That’s why if the General Assembly affirms these five again in early 2023, they could go before the voters in the 2023 primaries. Although voters not registered as Republicans or Democrats cannot vote in the state’s closed primaries, they can vote on constitutional amendment proposals.

By Bruce Frassinelli | tneditor@tnonline.com

The foregoing opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board or Times News LLC.