Politically Uncorrected: The Rodney Dangerfield Office

Lt. Governor Jim Cawley

Rodney Dangerfield, a popular American comedian best known for his iconic catchphrase: “I don’t get no respect,” was never Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, but he would have been right at home — the lieutenant governor’s office doesn’t get much respect, either. It’s the Rodney Dangerfield of state officialdom.

This dubious distinction was vividly on display recently when two state senate committees voted to eliminate the office without any public debate or even a committee hearing. Imagine a group of U.S. senators huddling together, and then   voting to eliminate the Vice Presidency of the United States without public debate or discussion. That’s pretty much what happened in Pennsylvania’s Senate.

True, the Senate vote isn’t final. It’s technically a proposal to amend the state constitution requiring passage by two consecutive sessions of the legislature and a statewide referendum vote. Ultimately, the voters would get to decide.

But the semi-secret Senate vote already taken shows just how little Harrisburg politicians regard the office of lieutenant governor — and more to the point, how little they care or understand the office’s political, historical and governmental role.

Some background: all but five states have the office. Most give their lieutenant governors some mix of constitutional and statutory responsibility. In Pennsylvania, the lieutenant governor legally presides over the state Senate, chairs the Board of Pardons and coordinates the activities of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. In many administrations they receive additional responsibilities from the governor, often, significant responsibilities.

Probably the most powerful lieutenant governor in modern history was Ernie Kline in the 1970s. Kline handled labor relations in the Shapp administration and was a crucial advisor on many matters. In the 1980s, Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton served under Dick Thornburgh, and handled the energy portfolio at a crucial time in the economic transition in the state. Mark Singel, lieutenant governor in the 1990s, actually took over the governorship when Gov. Bob Casey was hospitalized for a double organ transplant while Lt. Gov. Mark Schweiker in 2001 became governor when Tom Ridge left the office to accept President Bush’s appointment as U.S. Homeland Security Advisor. The current lieutenant governor, Jim Cawley, has had a variety of special assignments, including heading the Marcellus Shale Task Force and leading the charge for liquor privatization.

Lieutenant governors in modern times also have become politically prominent analogous to the increased status accorded to modern vice presidents. Since the mid 1960’s five incumbent lieutenant governors have made serious runs for governor and a sixth (Mark Schweiker) could have chosen to do so. Of the five who ran four were nominated for governor by their respective parties.

But the governmental and political importance of the office is only one reason for keeping it. The office also insures an orderly succession and continuity in the executive branch in the event an elected governor dies, resigns, or is unable to serve. Cliché though it may be, the lieutenant governor is but a heartbeat away from the governorship.

Without a lieutenant governor the replacement for an incapacitated governor would be the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. In the past, that often would have meant a replacement governor of the opposite party. There is hardly a worse outcome in a democracy then voters electing a governor from one party, only to see him or her replaced with a governor from the other party.  Yet, this nightmare scenario is not only possible without a lieutenant governor; it is likely.

To argue that the office of lieutenant governor is important is not to argue it is also perfect. In particular, the office’s nominating process is deeply flawed.  Under existing law, Republican and Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor are nominated separately, but must then run together in the general elections. Much better would be a system that required gubernatorial nominees to name their own running mates — much as presidential nominees now do.

This would replace the present crazy system in which governor and lieutenant governor nominees are merged “shotgun wedding” style into a party ticket only after primaries are over. Alternately, we could simply require candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run as a team in the primary, as they do now in general elections.

Either option is better than the electoral circus now used in which voters know little about the candidates for lieutenant governor, and nothing at all about what those candidates might do, if events thrust them into the governor’s chair.

It is time to recognize that Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governorship is now a vital office – one that has undergone a transformation, from a job once considered marginal to a job analogous to the national vice-presidency

So, yes, let’s change what is wrong with the way we select lieutenant governors, but polish it, not abolish it.

Pennsylvania needs a lieutenant governor. It also needs elected officials in Harrisburg who understand why.

5 Responses

  1. Not having a Lt. Gov. would be a big problem, if only because it would be possible if not likely that a resignation or death would swing control of the Governor’s Mansion to the other party.

    Look at Arizona: in only 102 years of existence as a state, six governors have left office due to death, impeachment, or resignation; because there is no Lt. Gov., the Secretary of State (an independently-elected office in AZ) took over. In two cases (both in the last 30 years) that flipped control of the Governorship. No thank you.

  2. Pennsylvania should enact a system whereby the lieutenant governor is also the secretary of the commonwealth. Since the LG’s official duties are minimal, there would be no harm done. Jersey uses that system. The main job of the LG, Kim Guadagno, is secretary of state.

  3. We need a lieutenant governor. That said, we do not need to spend $1 million plus on perks and a mansion. We do not need to elect what is essentially a stand-in. If a lt. gov becomes gov, he/she should serve only until the next election, primary or general, with an open election to succeed and a runoff provision. So let the Senate president — or the state treasurer — be the designee.

  4. 4 words why the Lt Governor position need to be eliminated:

    Governor Catherine Baker Knoll

  5. I dissent from the sentiments in this piece, if for no other reason than to note that the possibility of succession by an individual who has been internally-involved with all prior decision-making.

    In particular, Jim Cawley could easily function as a stand-in were Tom Corbett to become disabled in any fashion; he would have such ability that a legislative-leader [for example] would not be able to muster immediately.

    Illustrating the potential-independence of how these individuals are chosen is the fact that they are not hand-picked by the party’s gubernatorial nominee; thus, there does not seem to be sufficient justification to abolish this position.

Comments are closed.

  • Do You Agree With the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade?

    • No. (50%)
    • Yes. (47%)
    • Not Sure (3%)

    Total Voters: 109

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen