Governor responsible for disaster response

Neither emotion nor bitter politics are reason to alter the framework of our democracy.

The May 18 primary ballot asks voters two far-reaching questions that could change the way state government responds to future emergencies.

In essence: Should the Pennsylvania Constitution should be rewritten to restrict the governor’s power when disaster strikes?

The proposed constitutional amendments advanced by Republican state lawmakers did not arise in a vacuum or out of years of bipartisan analysis. Frustration with Gov. Tom Wolf’s executive actions amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the state’s broken politics landed them on the ballot.

Neither emotion nor the bitter politics accompanying this unprecedented pandemic, in our view, are reason to alter the framework of our democracy, tie the hands of the state’s elected chief executive and potentially hamstring future emergency response efforts.

The law empowers the governor to declare disaster emergencies for up to 90 days and renew them as needed.

The first ballot question asks whether the Legislature should have the power to end a governor’s disaster emergency declaration at any point with a simple majority vote. The second amendment would limit emergency declarations to 21 days and require the governor to obtain the Legislature’s approval to extend them.

Advocates cast the questions as a referendum on Wolf’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically the executive actions he took to stop the spread of COVID-19 and coordinate the state’s resources and emergency response.

Recall that Wolf’s COVID-19 disaster declaration did more than close schools and restaurants. It enabled licensing changes that permitted retired and out-of-state health care workers to join the front lines of the COVID fight here and the lifting of burdensome regulations on businesses hard hit by the pandemic. It allowed him to activate the National Guard to aid stricken nursing care facilities and deploy vaccine, among other things.

Those pressing to change the constitution say the disaster declaration, which Wolf has renewed four times, exposed a flaw in our system of checks and balances and that the governor must not have power in future crises to act unilaterally to close businesses indefinitely, for example, without consulting the Legislature.

In truth, the Legislature does not need a constitutional amendment to check the governor’s emergency power. It just needs enough votes to pass a resolution to end a declaration with a veto-proof majority. Republicans did not have the votes to do that and now seek to change the rules.

However imperfect the Wolf administration’s response to the unprecedented pandemic, Republican lawmakers have not inspired confidence that they are more fit to manage such a crisis. The Wolf administration can be faulted on a host of fronts, especially in the lack of transparency regarding some data and how businesses were deemed essential.

But at a time when leaders should have united to rally Pennsylvanians to adhere to safety guidelines recommended by public health experts, too many in the Republican Party mocked and resisted basic measures such as face masks as an attack on personal liberty, rather than a sacrifice needed to protect fellow Pennsylvanians.

They castigated Wolf for harming small businesses but opted to use $1.3 billion in federal coronavirus relief funding not for direct aid but to fill COVID-19-related state budget gaps. They still don’t have a plan to spend Pennsylvania’s $7 billion share of American Rescue Plan funding, as USA Today Pennsylvania Network reporter Candy Woodall detailed.

When weighing these proposed amendments, consider not the politics but the practical effect the amendments could have during future disasters much more likely to strike than a once-in-a-century pandemic. It is events like catastrophic snowfall in the Poconos or Lake Erie snowbelt. Imagine amid a crisis having to seek the consent of the Legislature every three weeks, a Legislature that is not often in session and not prone to comity.

Decision-making by committee during an emergency is a reckless proposition and simply not practical or necessary since a mechanism to rein in overreach already exists.

Common sense should prevail. Disaster management is the purview of the executive branch for a reason. It should stay that way.