PA special elections could allow Democrats to 'block' laws 'Republicans have been advancing': journalist
Pennsylvania's Allegheny county will hold three special elections this week that could secure Democratic control of the state House for the first time in 12 years, The New York Times reports.
Per NYT journalist Maggie Astor, although Democratic candidates won the seats in November, all three remain unfilled today because the candidates "either did not take office or quickly stepped down."
The Democratic candidates in the running are Joe McAndrew, executive director of Allegheny County Democratic Committee, Abigail Salisbury, an attorney, and Matt Gergely, a chief revenue officer of McKeesport, PA. Astor reports all are expected to win as the county typically votes "heavily blue."
READ MORE: Pennsylvania GOP candidate echoes Trump’s election conspiracy theories with new election lawsuit targeting mail-in ballots
In the case the candidates do win, the Democrats will have established "the narrowest of majorities," 102 to 101. Pennsylvania GOP candidates would also secure a "slim majority" if they win the vacant seats.
If Republicans keep their control of the state legislature, the members will likely face resistance from Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro veto, but could still "bypass it to put constitutional amendments before voters."
Democrats winning the House, according to Astor, would mean the legislators can begin "passing legislation after a month of parliamentary paralysis." The lawmakers would still have to collaborate with the GOP-led state Senate to successfully push legislation up to the governor.
Furthermore, a majority Democratic state House, Astor reports, would allow the lawmakers to put forth "an extra barrier to any Republican efforts to interfere with the administration or results of the 2024 election." Additionally, securing all three seats would provide the Democrats with power "to block legislation that Republicans have been advancing in recent years," which includes anti-abortion and restrictive voting laws.
The New York Times' full report is available here (subscription required).
