Capital Rants

Mackereth votes ‘no’ on gun control measures

By MARK FRANKLIN

Gov. Ed Rendell made a rare plea in front of legislative committee Tuesday. He spoke for 40 minutes. He gestured. He smacked his hand on a table. He had a row of police officers sitting behind him.

And he struck out.

Rendell argued for legislation that would allow municipalities to establish their own gun control laws. The House Judiciary Committee shot it down, 19-10.

Rendell lobbied for a bill that would limit handgun purchases to one a month. The committee voted 17-12 against sending it to the full House floor.

State Rep. Beverly Mackereth, R-Spring Grove, is the lone York County lawmaker on the committee. She voted against both bills, and wasn’t at all hesitant to explain why.

“The bottom line is this — philosophically, I don’t think either one will have an impact on gun violence,” she said. 

The proposal allowing gun control laws to vary by municipalities was the worst of the two, in her mind. If passed, it would have allowed York City, for instance, to limit handgun sales to one per month, or even one per year. But what would be the point, Mackereth asked, if neighboring municipalities didn’t follow suit.

As for limiting handgun purchases to one a month, Mackereth said it’s been tried elsewhere “and hasn’t done a thing” to curb gun violence. She compared it to the war on drugs. “As long as there’s a demand, there’s going to be a supply. Criminals are still going to get their hands on guns.”

Mackereth argues the real answers to gun violence are enforcement, the presence of police officers and violence prevention programs, such as early education opportunities and intervention services for families living in high-crime areas. Part of the problem is that services to at-risk children and families “remain our lowest priority in government,” she said.

As for the proposals touted by the governor …

“Everyone wants to do something that sounds good,” Mackereth said. “My thinking is, ‘If it’s not going to work, why do it?’”

One get-tough-on-crime measure passed muster with the judicial committee Tuesday. It voted 27-2 in favor of a minimum 20-year sentence for someone who shoots at a police officer, even if the officer isn’t wounded. Mackereth voted in favor of the proposal.

Party protection prevails in race for commissioner

When you visit the polls to vote today, you’ll notice something peculiar.

Five school board seats will be on the ballot in most areas. And you’ll get to cast votes for five candidates.

Multiple council seats are available in every York County borough. And you’ll get to cast a vote for each seat in whichever borough you live.

If your township is electing more than one supervisor, you’ll get to cast more than one vote. Again, you select a favored candidate for each seat.

Then there’s the county commissioners’ race, clearly the most important local race on the ballot in today’s election. We, the voters, will elect three commissioners today. Those three commissioners represent each and every one of us.

Yet we get just two votes.

Ever wonder why?

Apparently, the rule dates back to at least 1874, according to Douglas E. Hill, executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania. He says it’s designed to make it harder for one party to control all three seats on the board of commissioners.

Presumably, the thinking is that in a county like York, where Republicans outnumber Democrats by a fairly substantial margin, the GOP could put up a write-in candidate in each and every commissioner election. Then voters, armed with three votes instead of two, could give Republicans a clean sweep in the commissioners race.

It’s the same minority party protection philosophy pointed to as the reason there are so few choices on the ballot in a commissioner race — just four candidates for three seats. Allow more than four candidates on the ballot and you might wind up with a board of commissioners with three Republicans or three Democrats.

It’s all hogwash.

I learned long ago that the quality of the candidate means a whole lot more than the letter behind their name in a local election. The commissioners we elect today aren’t going to be voting on funding for the war in Iraq, abortion law or immigration reform, for crying out loud.

And I generally go to the polls on Election Day knowing who I want to see sitting in all three commissioner seats … and knowing who I don’t want on the board. With two votes, what am I supposed to do? Vote for my two favorites? Or try to figure out which of my three favorites are likely to garner the least support and cast votes for them to keep the fourth candidate off the board?

It’s yet another election rule that needs to change.

Otherwise, what’s the message to voters?

Well, the message is clear. In a commissioners’ race — the most important local election – party protection is more important than voters’ opinions.