National Review
The governor of Pennsylvania’s abuse of emergency powers must end
In Pennsylvania, the business community is challenging the exaggeration of Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s executive over the COVID-19 pandemic. The Pennsylvanians’ demands for parliamentarians a year ago to limit Wolf’s emergency powers have led to a historic referendum, which would change the state’s constitution and restore controls and balances if adopted. Voters will be given this opportunity during the mayor’s office on May 18 next month. Since his initial restrictions last March, Wolf has vetoed at least a dozen bills parliamentarians have created to reopen the economy. It also adopted an unequal, opaque waiver process to determine which “life-sustaining” businesses could remain open. The Wolf administration refused to release “exactly what criteria it used to consider applications or explain to applicants why exemptions were granted or denied,” according to Spotlight PA. Although Wolf has positioned himself as a lawyer for the elderly who were most vulnerable to COVID-19, he thwarted parliamentarians’ efforts to save key housing construction projects for the elderly. Indeed, last spring, Wolf’s veto of the state Senate’s bill to reopen the construction industry – based on federal guidelines – signaled that his response to the pandemic would prove chaotic. Wolf eventually succumbed to legislative pressure, but his initial executive actions delayed the completion of crucial housing projects for seniors during the crisis. However, construction companies, their elderly customers and countless others who have experienced the consequences of closing Wolf’s business are likely to find the voting questions attached to the proposed constitutional changes confusing, if not deliberately misleading. Although the governor acted unilaterally while resisting legislative efforts to help businesses, the Wolf administration drafted the referendum as if it were the opposite. “The language is insincere. He is destined to be defeated, “Democratic State Sen. Lisa Boscola told The Morning Call. “The worst thing is that it creates fear.” The challenge for supporters is to transcend the distorted language that the Wolf administration is trying to coerce the voting public. There are two separate but related voting questions. The first asks voters if they want to change the current law and increase the power of the General Assembly “to unilaterally conclude or extend the declaration of emergency in the event of a disaster.” The biased and unclear wording essentially asks whether voters would like to eliminate an existing “check and balance”. The second asks voters whether a declaration of urgency should automatically expire after 21 days “regardless of the severity of the emergency, unless the General Assembly takes steps to extend the emergency in the event of a disaster. . . “There is nothing unilateral in the vote of the majority of the elected representatives of the people. In addition, assessing the severity and duration of an emergency should not be the only power of a person. Under current state law, a governor’s declaration of urgency can take up to 90 days. But now, thanks to a ruling by the state’s supreme court, a governor can permanently renew his statements without legislative input. While Wolf argued – with the support of the Democratic majority of the court – that the Pennsylvania statute allows the legislature to end a declaration of urgency with a concurrent resolution, lawmakers must present the resolution to the governor for approval or veto. This is even the unilateral definition. And it didn’t serve the retirees well. “The bottom line is that elected representatives are the closest people,” House Speaker Bryan Cutler told the National Review. “This simply ensures that people have the opportunity to raise their hand and say, wait a minute, it might not be the best way to handle a certain situation and there may be a better way. Hi”. Cutler argues that, contrary to what Wolf’s rulers would think, the changes would give future governors the freedom to address emergencies. However, after 21 days, new measures would ensure that the executive could not extend indefinite orders indefinitely. Pennsylvania would have “more of a direct say in the process,” Cutler said, while the governor would be forced to work “more collaboratively” with the General Assembly. Cutler, a Lancaster County Republican, notes the creation of the joint COVID-19 vaccine working group in Pennsylvania, as an example where lawmakers and the governor’s administration have worked together in an emergency to effectively provide public services. “If you are passionate about what happened recently with the distribution of the vaccine, you would also be a fan of managing all emergencies in this way and you should vote yes on these voting questions,” Cutler said. The working group worked with the National Guard to “improve logistics and coordination in all branches of government,” he added. Cutler recalls a different – and dysfunctional – dynamic last year after the governor issued COVID shutdown orders. “Unfortunately, the public was overwhelmingly excluded,” Cutler said. “When the governor closed all businesses and then had his business program fail, no one could actually call and talk to the governor’s office. Instead, the phones were transferred to the Department of Health. So people called their local legislators because this is the closest contact for them. “In Pennsylvania, before any proposed constitutional amendment can be put on the ballot, it must be approved by the General Assembly in two consecutive legislative sessions – often a difficult process. But shortly after the state court ruling last July, Wolf fueled the momentum of lawmakers when he vetoed a competing resolution to end his closure orders. The House then tried to overturn Wolf’s veto, but failed, prompting both chambers to advance the amendments. “As we pointed out in our amicus statement to the Supreme Court, it is actually easier to accuse the governor than to adopt a competing resolution that overturns the governor’s emergency powers,” said Nathan Benefield, vice president of the Commonwealth Foundation, a Pennsylvania organization. public policy think tank. “Our hope is that in the future, the governor will have to consult with the legislator on his powers and emergency orders.” According to Benefield, the amendments “strike the right balance” because they retain the governor’s ability to “take swift and decisive action at the start of an emergency.” At the same time, he notes, they help “restore controls and balances where they have disappeared.” “Wolf’s actions during COVID-19 demonstrate that emergency powers should not last a year or more,” Benefield added. The election questions drafted by Wolf’s secretary of state use loaded language, suggesting that the General Assembly is the one trying to push the constitutional boundaries and function non-literally. In reality, Wolf sought to centralize power with additional impetus from Democratic judges at the state supreme court. “It’s a classic example of a government that does something much more complicated than it should,” Cutler complains. “The questions could have been asked more simply to ask voters if I think people should have a voice in the process of running the state.” State Sen. Kim Ward, the GOP majority leader and main sponsor of the bill that placed constitutional amendments in front of voters, describes the Supreme Court as an “extremely partisan” body that consistently meets Wolf’s request. “They will not look at the law and will only do what the governor wants,” she said. “The court created a constitutional crisis with this decision, because now the governor is the only person who can end a state of emergency.” Despite the “misleading verb” that Wolf’s State Department introduced in the language of the election, Ward still trusts Pennsylvania voters. “It’s trying to scare people away from the opportunity to return to a balance of power that we haven’t had for more than a year now,” Ward said. “But it’s very encouraging to see rallies across the state from people who are involved in this process.” Ward stressed the importance of May’s vote. “The next time there is a crisis, if you want to make sure that your parent and pop restaurants are represented, not just the big chain stories, and if you want to make sure that the person who cuts your hair is represented, then please vote and vote yes. ”