A recent amendment to a Pennsylvania House of Representatives bill threatens an effort to reduce the size of the House just before the bill nears the end of its four-year road to final approval.

Last week, the House’s Rules Committee added to the bill a reduction to the state Senate. The original bill, if passed, would allow voters to decide whether to reduce the number of state representatives from 203 to 151. The amendment adds in a reduction of the Senate from 50 to 38.

Besides dissuading state senators, such a change to the state’s constitution requires an identically worded bill to pass in two consecutive two-year legislative sessions. Changing the language of the bill with the amendment means kicking it down the road again to the legislature’s next session, at the least.

To representatives supporting the bill, like its primary sponsor state Rep. Jerry Knowles, R-124th, the amendment was a move to kill the bill’s chances of passing. Knowles represents parts of Berks, Carbon and Schuylkill counties.

“It’s typical Harrisburg shenanigans,” Knowles said in a phone interview Tuesday.

Knowles said what shocked him were several representatives who formerly voted for the bill moving to amend and jeopardize it in the committee vote.

“This has been a three-and-a-half year process,” Knowles said. “They voted on this thing seven times. We are one vote away. I’m very disappointed, particularly, in the people who voted to blow this thing up in rules.”

The amendment passed 18 to 14 on Oct. 25, legislative records show. Of the 18 votes in favor, six were cast by representatives who voted for the bill’s final passage in the 2015-2016 legislative session. Those are Robert Godshall, R-53rd, Judy Ward, R-80th, Mike Carroll, D-118th, Dom Costa, D-21st, Neal Goodman, D-123rd, and Joseph Markosek, D-25th.

Mike Coulter, a political science professor at Grove City College, agreed that “it would be reasonable to see that as a delay tactic.”

Coulter noted that the effort overall is rather unusual, and the fact that it keeps coming back indicates that people are wanting it.

“Just that the legislature keeps passing this, even an amended version of it, it tells that there is public support for it,” Coulter said. “Constituents seem to be telling them this back home.”

Knowles and other supporters of the bill emphasize that it is not a direct move to shrink the House. Rather, it puts the matter up for a public, statewide referendum.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, said in a phone interview Tuesday that the amendment to also shrink the Senate is a play to delay the vote. Some legislators, he said, might be trying to avoid eliminating their own jobs.

“They’re trying to create political cover,” Metcalfe said. “That’s a red herring they’re throwing out there just to distract voters.”

Metcalfe said he thinks voters would pass the measure, if given the choice.

“I think the majority of the population believes we could do better with a smaller legislature,” he said.

Metcalfe offered some speculation of the bill’s upcoming timeline. He said he had expected to debate the bill and its amendment over the last couple of weeks, and hopes to see it debated next week.

He noted that he’d heard rumors of fellow representatives wanting to wait and vote on it in November, after the general election. He said he’d prefer to avoid a vote in a lame-duck session, but that it could happen if voting days are extended.

The main arguments for shrinking the House hinge around cost and effectiveness. Reducing the House by 52 positions would save $13 million to $16 million annually, according to a Senate Appropriations Committee fiscal note.

State Rep. Aaron Bernstine, R-10th, supports the move for that reason.

“We have one of the largest full time and most costly state legislatures in the nation,” Bernstine said.

Bernstine said the amendment made him concerned about the bill’s fate.

“I’m becoming less optimistic as games are being played with putting in additional reductions to the Senate,” Bernstine said.

Still other Butler County state representatives — there are seven total — oppose such reductions.

State Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-60th, has opposed the effort for years, joining most of the state’s Democrats. He argues that it would take representatives out of rural areas. He paints it as an urban effort to thin out rural representation.

“It never gets traction in the areas where real people live,” Pyle said in a phone interview Tuesday.

He rejects one argument made by supporters like Knowles, who argues that reducing the number of representatives would expedite the work of the legislature and lessen infighting.

To that, Pyle asked “Who the hell sent you here to be more manageable?” House bickering and foot-dragging is a deliberate part of the system, he said.

He also argued that the projected savings are meager in a $33 billion budget.

State Rep. Lee James, R-64th, also opposes the House reductions. He noted that constituents would have to drive farther to visit their legislator’s office.

“The concept of shrinking the legislature to me sounds really good if you’re shrinking it in the urban part of the state,” James said in a phone interview Tuesday.

He said he would oppose the bill unless it also included the Senate reductions. However, he doesn’t expect the bill to be voted on again at all.

State Rep. Jim Marshall, R-14th, Rep. Brian Ellis, R-11th, and Rep. Tedd Nesbit, R-8th, did not return calls for comment.