State Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R-34), Senate Majority Leader Kim Ward (R-39), and House Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff (R-171) on Wednesday accused the Wolf administration of using “prejudicial” language in the ballot question regarding a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit future emergency declarations.
Specifically, the amendment would limit disaster declarations to 21 days unless extensions are approved by the General Assembly. Gov. Tom Wolf signed his fourth renewal of his original 90-day Proclamation of Disaster Emergency for the COVID-19 pandemic on Friday. The first proclamation was signed on March 6, 2020.
Following the recent release of the ballot questions by the Department of State, state Republican leaders argued that the wording was “slanted” and uses language that was not included in the legislation proposing the amendment.
“The governor has only one thing to lose if this amendment wins in May and that’s unilateral power,” Ward said. “But the people win, because there will be more voices at the table when it comes to an extended state of emergency.”
Ward said the past year amid the COVID-19 pandemic has been tough for all, but that the confusion perpetuated by the governor’s inconsistent business closures, lockdown orders, and restrictions could have been avoided if the Pennsylvania Legislature had been able to speak on behalf of state residents.
“This is not a partisan issue,” Ward continued. “This is a people issue.”
Ward acknowledged that this struggle of unilateral power is not isolated to Pennsylvania. Several states, both Democratic and Republican-led, are facing this issue of a balance of power.
“No one envisioned when we put the constitution together or added Act 35 powers to the executive branch that we would be living under this unilateral control for this length of time,” Corman said. “But it’s not healthy for democracy.”
Corman added that the questions were “clearly” written in a way for the amendment to fail.
The Department of State language for the two ballot questions regarding the emergency declarations amendment state:
- “Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to change existing law and increase the power of the General Assembly to unilaterally terminate or extend a disaster emergency declaration—and the powers of Commonwealth agencies to address the disaster regardless of its severity pursuant to that declaration—through passing a concurrent resolution by simple majority, thereby removing the existing check and balance of presenting a resolution to the Governor for approval or disapproval?”
- Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to change existing law so that: a disaster emergency declaration will expire automatically after 21 days, regardless of the severity of the emergency, unless the General Assembly takes action to extend the disaster emergency; the Governor may not declare a new disaster emergency to respond to the dangers facing the Commonwealth unless the General Assembly passes a concurrent resolution; the General Assembly enacts new laws for disaster management?
In his statements, Corman called attention to the phrase “increase the power of the General Assembly to unilaterally terminate or extend a disaster emergency,” arguing that Wolf has acted unilaterally for the past year without any conversation with the state Legislature and that any action from the General Assembly would be balanced in concert with the executive branch. Similarly, the phrase “removing the existing check and balance” is moot as there has been no such system in place against Wolf’s repeated renewals of the disaster declaration, Corman said.
“There are no checks and balances right now. We have one person making every decision,” he said. “What businesses can be open, what businesses need to be closed. Where you can go to congregate, where you can’t go to congregate. What schools are open, what schools are closed. These are unilateral decisions being made by this chief executive.”
Ward added that the use of the phrase “regardless of the severity of the emergency” is overly dramatic and is not what the amendment is fighting for.
“We’re not trying to take away the governor’s power,” Ward said. “We’re just trying to reinstate our equal branches of government. If there’s still an emergency going on, the governor still has a state of emergency called, but we would get a seat at the table to look at things too.”