Keith and stuff
12-20-2013, 06:49 PM
New Hampshire’s state legislature is nine times larger than Nebraska’s
By Niraj Chokshi
December 20 at 6:01 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/20/new-hampshires-state-legislature-is-nine-times-larger-than-nebraskas/
Earlier this week, we wrote about how Pennsylvania’s legislature is considering downsizing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/18/pennsylvanias-house-votes-to-shrink-the-pennsylvania-house/) in what would be the first meaningful change to a state legislature since Rhode Island made a reduction in 2004.
In reporting that piece, we reached out to the folks at... National Conference of State Legislatures, and they graciously provided us with state-by-state data on the sizes of legislative bodies in each state. They can vary a lot. Nebraska is home to just 49 state legislators, while New Hampshire’s legislature is almost nine times larger with 424 members. All told, there are 7,383 state lawmakers in the country...
House lawmakers in California represent just over 475,000 constituents each, more than counterparts in any other state. And in California and Texas, state senators represent more constituents than does any member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Members of the New Hampshire and Vermont Houses represent the fewest constituents of any state. The average number of constituents per district in Vermont is 4,173, while in New Hampshire it is just 3,302. [correction, it isn't the number of constituents per district, it is the number of constituents per legislator. NH and VT are 2 of the 10 states where some districts are multi-seat.] A change to the size of Pennsylvania’s legislature would mean each House member there would represent 83,000 people, up from 62,500, according to The Patriot News.
How does your state stack up?
Total legislators
So I don't know where to stand on this. The more representation the better. The lower the costs of elections, the better, because that prevents people from being bought off. It works great for NH because they only make $100 a year in salary and the 400 house members get little lockers, just like middle school kids, for offices. But in PA, legislators make $80,000 a year plus good benefits. If PA went from 253 legislators to 191, it would save the taxpayers a lot of money in pay, benefits, office space, assistants and so on. But it would likely lead to legislators that are even more bought and paid for in PA, plus it would be harder to interact with them. And it would make running for office more expensive so in some ways, the proposed changes are just an Incumbent Protection Act. While additionally, it might save the taxpayers of PA some money, overall, it would likely lead to bigger government at an even faster pace. It's also an Incumbent Protection Act because the new district lines will likely be drawn in a way to help incumbents.
And remember, the current legislature in PA just voted to almost double gas taxes so it's not like these folks should stay in office.
http://oi44.tinypic.com/qzmyol.jpg
By Niraj Chokshi
December 20 at 6:01 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/20/new-hampshires-state-legislature-is-nine-times-larger-than-nebraskas/
Earlier this week, we wrote about how Pennsylvania’s legislature is considering downsizing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/18/pennsylvanias-house-votes-to-shrink-the-pennsylvania-house/) in what would be the first meaningful change to a state legislature since Rhode Island made a reduction in 2004.
In reporting that piece, we reached out to the folks at... National Conference of State Legislatures, and they graciously provided us with state-by-state data on the sizes of legislative bodies in each state. They can vary a lot. Nebraska is home to just 49 state legislators, while New Hampshire’s legislature is almost nine times larger with 424 members. All told, there are 7,383 state lawmakers in the country...
House lawmakers in California represent just over 475,000 constituents each, more than counterparts in any other state. And in California and Texas, state senators represent more constituents than does any member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Members of the New Hampshire and Vermont Houses represent the fewest constituents of any state. The average number of constituents per district in Vermont is 4,173, while in New Hampshire it is just 3,302. [correction, it isn't the number of constituents per district, it is the number of constituents per legislator. NH and VT are 2 of the 10 states where some districts are multi-seat.] A change to the size of Pennsylvania’s legislature would mean each House member there would represent 83,000 people, up from 62,500, according to The Patriot News.
How does your state stack up?
Total legislators
So I don't know where to stand on this. The more representation the better. The lower the costs of elections, the better, because that prevents people from being bought off. It works great for NH because they only make $100 a year in salary and the 400 house members get little lockers, just like middle school kids, for offices. But in PA, legislators make $80,000 a year plus good benefits. If PA went from 253 legislators to 191, it would save the taxpayers a lot of money in pay, benefits, office space, assistants and so on. But it would likely lead to legislators that are even more bought and paid for in PA, plus it would be harder to interact with them. And it would make running for office more expensive so in some ways, the proposed changes are just an Incumbent Protection Act. While additionally, it might save the taxpayers of PA some money, overall, it would likely lead to bigger government at an even faster pace. It's also an Incumbent Protection Act because the new district lines will likely be drawn in a way to help incumbents.
And remember, the current legislature in PA just voted to almost double gas taxes so it's not like these folks should stay in office.
http://oi44.tinypic.com/qzmyol.jpg