Even the architect of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives' effort to shrink itself agrees that this year's attempt died Monday.

After batting versions of the bill back and forth between the state Senate, House and House Rules Committee, 114 members of the House voted against sending the bill back to committee while just 76 voted in favor. In a phone interview Tuesday the bill's primary sponsor, state Rep. Jerry Knowles, R-124th, said the nay-voters “killed the bill.”

“We could only muster up 76 yes votes,” Knowles said. “It is just incredibly disappointing for the taxpayers of Pennsylvania that they won't get to make this decision.”

The bill in question was an attempt to amend the state Constitution. Doing so requires passage in two consecutive legislative sessions, with this one being the second. If it had made it through both sessions' worth of votes — a four-year process — the public would've decided in a referendum whether to reduce the House from 203 members to 151. The general sentiment among legislators is that the public would likely approve the referendum if given the opportunity.

The House Rules Committee previously dealt a heavy blow to the bill by adding in language that would also shrink the state Senate. Beyond making the bill unpopular in the Senate, changing its language would also reset the bill's two-session requirement, delaying things.

Knowles saw Monday's vote as a last-ditch effort to send the bill back to the committee without new language involving the Senate. The failed vote means the Senate language remains.

He said state Rep. Frank Dermody, D-33rd, the Democratic chairman of the rules committee, orchestrated the bill's demise.

“It's dead,” Knowles said. “Frank Dermody put the poison pill in it. Any chance of getting it off life support was taken away when they pathetically voted.”

Bill Patton, a spokesman for Dermody, explained Dermody's position while the legislature was in session Tuesday.

“He's opposed to the idea of shrinking the size of the House,” Patton said. “And if we're going to have this conversation at all, he believes it should include both the House and the Senate together.”

Patton noted that Monday's opposing vote was bipartisan. All of the House's Democrats and 40 Republicans voted against the bill. The bill, Patton said, isn't “dead,” but it does include the Senate.

He said much of the Democratic opposition to the bill was based on fears of how a shrunk House's electoral map might be drawn.

“The way things are set up right now, gerrymandering is a distinct possibility,” Patton said.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, took issue with that point in a phone interview Tuesday.

“I don't think there's any validity to that at all,” Metcalfe said.

He said “Supreme Court justices should be impeached” for the recent redrawing of districts meant to correct Republican gerrymandering in Pennsylvania.

Only one Butler County representative who previously voted in favor of the bill voted against it Monday. Rep. Brian Ellis, R-11th, voted no, and Metcalfe said that decision surprised him.

Speaking broadly about Republicans who flipped on the bill, but not specifically naming Ellis, Metcalfe said “I think it was a violation or betrayal of voters who sent them here with expectations that they would've supported it again this session.”

Ellis did not return a call for comment Tuesday.

Metcalfe also said that several Republican representatives were trying to steer house leadership away from forcing them to vote on the bill at all.

State Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-60th, said on the phone that he was happy to see Monday's failed vote on the bill, and he explained Ellis's vote saying “he listened to logic.”

“I started laying out numbers for him.” Pyle said. “If you go with the plan, part of (Ellis' district) will touch Pittsburgh.”

Pyle, a longtime critic of shrinking the legislature, said Ellis' district would need Democrat votes added to it to abide by court rules, and the only logical way to get them was for the district to reach closer to Pittsburgh.

State Rep. Tedd Nesbit, R-8th, said he voted in favor because “ultimately as a conservative, we need to shrink the size of the government.”

As for Republicans who voted against the bill Monday, Nesbit said: “It's a tough vote to consider when they might actually be voting themselves out of a job.”

Pyle acknowledged that such reasoning was part of his logic. He said he believed his seat would be eliminated.

“Does me saving my job have something to do with it? Yeah,” Pyle said. “But it has a lot to do with me knowing that my citizens wouldn't have anyone there to go to bat for them.”

Many of the representatives in favor of the move said the effort isn't over. State Rep. Aaron Bernstine, R-10th, repeated the standard argument for such a change: cost savings.

“The legislature is bloated,” he said. “I can tell you that it remains a priority for me to try and reduce the size of the legislature.”

But the bill's sponsor, Knowles, sounded more weary.

“I want to step back and take a breath,” Knowles said. “It's obvious I couldn't get the job done. I'd be glad to turn the reins over for someone else to try.”

Rep. James Marshall, R-14th, and Rep. Lee James, R-64th, were unable to be reached for comment.

Seven state lawmakers represent a portion of Butler County. Here's how they voted Monday on shrinking the size of the state legislature. A 'yea' vote would move forward with the effort, while a 'nay' vote doomed its passage this year.Tedd Nesbit, R-8th, voted yea.Aaron Bernstine, R-10th, voted yea.Brian Ellis, R-11th, voted nay.Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, voted yea.James Marshall, R-14th, voted yea.Jeff Pyle, R-60th, voted nay.Lee James, R-64th, voted nay.