Vote NO On PA Emergency Declarations Constitutional Amendment

Last week, state Senator Bob Mensch submitted an editorial outlining his support for constitutional amendments that would limit the power of the governor during times of emergency by stripping the executive branch of the ability to decide when an emergency has abated or not. As a community, we should absolutely vote NO on this constitutional amendment based on two important realities.

The first argument for this amendment centers on a single historical reference, namely, the ongoing pandemic and the actions of a single governor in our commonwealth’s long history. Many may not agree with the choices Governor Wolf made, and that is a reasonable response to the challenges this pandemic has wrought on all of us. However, the actions of a single executive are hardly a reason to change the constitution where the executive branch is explicitly given the ability to manage and respond to emergencies. The state constitution identifies the importance of the executive in emergency situations and how a legislative body — deliberative by design — is not the ideal avenue through which emergency management should occur. If the residents of our commonwealth do not agree with the management of the emergency, we have agency to elect a new governor when the term has concluded.

In the editorial provided last week, not a single historical reference is cited to when emergency management was an issue prior to the Wolf Administration. The COVID-19 pandemic has been historically difficult, but it has not been the only emergency we have ever experienced. Plenty of emergencies have come and gone in Pennsylvania without a change to the constitution being necessary.

So, why make it now? Is it political? Is there something about the world today that is not true decades ago? The answers to these questions are unclear, because Senator Mensch and those who voted to approve the amendment have provided little evidence of the necessity for the change. Instead, they hang their hat on their disagreements with the actions the current governor has taken and choices he has made.

That is a fine political argument to make, but it does not necessitate a constitutional amendment.

The second issue with the constitutional amendments is that its creation is unnecessary from a process perspective. The senator argues that the legislature will only intervene in a governor’s actions if he “abuses his power or deeply infringes on the rights of citizens.” The power of the legislature to stop abuses like these already exist in our state constitution in the form of impeachment. If the state legislative body believes the governor has overstepped his constitutional authority, they have every right to begin the impeachment process and review the actions and decisions being made.

The legislative lack of will to use their authority does not necessitate a new constitutional amendment. It instead begs the question of motive behind creating an arbitrary 21-day window for emergencies that, again, has been offered without context.

Stripping power from a rightfully elected representative of the people should require a high bar. Residents of our state understand the power the executive branch holds and the critical role it plays in managing emergencies in our commonwealth. If the legislative branch believes that the governor has overstepped the limits of his power, then they should use their existing power of impeachment to check the governor.

Additionally, there is no preponderance of evidence, historical or otherwise, to suggest that this is a serial flaw in our constitution.

Based on the lack of evidence and lack of historical need for this constitutional amendment I would recommend voting NO to ensure every governor can continue to manage any future emergency with the expediency that emergencies require.