On June 10, the Maine House passed LD1424 on second reading, but the Maine Senate later that day killed the bill. It would have created a unicameral (one-house only) state legislature, of 151 members. Currently the Senate has 36 members and the House has 151 members.
One state currently has a unicameral legislature, though Jesse Ventura wanted that for Minnesota when he was governor — another one of his wrong ideas.
New Hampshire has a very large legislature, and apparently as a result does get — or used to, anyway — fewer oppressive laws and fewer tax increases.
Only one house makes it too easy for the fascists and socialists to pass more controlling laws.
See? Competition works even in government.
In Texas, and it’s probably the same in most states, we pretty much have two Houses of Representatives, the districts are just drawn differently. This dual-representation doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. State Senators and should be nominated by the Mayors and approved by their respective City Council. I can see why they’d want to go to a unicameral legislator, but the answer is more representation and more federalism.
Nebraska has nonpartisan elections for its unicameral legislature. Minnesota elected its legislature on a nonpartisan basis, 1913-1973.
Louisiana and Washington state, to be sure, have nonpartisan elections for all state officials.
A bicameral legislature is definitely superior, but I don’t see the advantage to having a large legislature. That costs the taxpayers more in salaries, expenses, and pensions.
#2: Apportioning both state legislative chambers based on population is the result of a ruling(s) from the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1960s.
Part of Earl Warren’s legacy…
That ruling, as Steve Rankin no doubt knows, was Baker v. Carr, meaning Howard Baker versus the State of Tennessee.
The state senate had been based on counties, but the ruling was that — and never mind the existence of the United States Senate — the senate’s being disproportionate made it unconstitutional.
Why not expand the number of houses of state legislatures from 2 houses to 3 (tri-cameral)? Does anyone know if there has been an instance of a 3-house legislative branch?
Yes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricameralism
Steve,
Why do you think bicameralism is definitely superior to unicameralism? It seems to me that since, as you point out, SCOTUS has required that districting for both state chambers must be done on the basis of population alone, a second chamber has become redundant and a waste of public funds.
I respect your insights and will be interested in your point of view about this.
Dave
Unicameral legislatures are better. 2 chambers just means more government and less efficiency and responsiveness by government. The city of Chicago has one ‘legislature’ (city council) and does just fine. It is bigger than many states in terms of population.
2 chambers are like political welfare for politicians, especially when there are term limits.
Bicameralism is better. I see the Sacramento Sausage Factory on a consistent basis in my role as a Legislative Analyst for the LPCA, and the bicameral legislature does create many more opportunities for involvement in the process (when it works) and many more opportunities to kill bad bills (which are about 90% of them to be generous).
Tennessee’s system prior to the horrendous Baker v. Carr ruling was the way to go, based in the premise that the next lower level of government had representation in the upper house of that level–like the US Senate used to be before America died in 1913. The natural extension of that lower, with cities having a voice in a County Senate, and the people having the lower houses all along the way, is actually the ideal bicameral system. (It could even be extended in the municipal level to things like neighborhoods, wards and boroughs in large cities while still having at-large officials) It’s not surprising that the increase in unfunded mandates on the lower governments coincide directly with those lower governments losing their voices in the upper houses.
In my view, it’s already easy enough to enact laws; I’m not in favor of anything that will make it easier to do so.
When one house passes a bad bill, the other house can stop it. When the two houses pass differing versions of the same bill, it goes to a conference committee. This allows for more discussion and consideration. And, of course, when the executive vetoes a bill, a 2/3 vote of both houses is required to override.
If memory serves, George Washington explained to Thomas Jefferson why two houses were better than one… something analagous to giving the coffee time to cool. Perhaps the brilliant Michael Morrison can provide us with the exact quote.
It may have been James Madison to whom Washington gave that explanation, since Jefferson was in France at the time of the constitutional convention.
The much more brilliant Steve Rankin is right in that the brilliant Michael Morrison can provide you all with the (possibly) exact quote:
James Madison, a major author of the Constitution, reasoned that a single, popularly elected legislature might respond too quickly to changes in public opinion and would enact “defective laws which do mischief before they can be mended.†Madison believed that a second legislative body “consisting of fewer and riper members, deliberating separately & independently of the other, may be expected to correct many errors and inaccuracies†of the other.
In theory, the House would represent the common people, while the Senate would represent wealthier property owners and serve as a check against the pressures of public opinion. But those who wanted a more democratic government objected to creating an aristocratic “upper†house. Thomas Jefferson supposedly asked George Washington why a Senate was necessary. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?†Washington responded. “To cool it,†Jefferson replied. “Even so,†said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.â€
The source is: http://www.answers.com/topic/bicameralism
Madison wanted representaion in the Senate to also be based on population and was quite depressed when he lost out on that.
I’m from Nebraska. Having non-partisan elections for the Unicameral is not good. Most voters have no clue what the candidates stand for. Yet the vast majority of the candidates are, as everyone knows, endorsed members of either the Republicans or Democrats. Local media usually states their party affiliation anyway. However, the easiest way to get this essential information out is simply by printing their party ID on the ballot. The lack of party labels makes the senators less accountable to the voters, and also tends to increase the power of incumbency.
I have nothing against the concept of a unicameral though, but stating the candidates’ party affiliations (or lack of them) is absolutely necessary to hold the senators accountable for their actions.
#15: Are there party caucuses in the Nebraska legislature?
Louisiana, which registers voters by party, has nonpartisan elections for all state and local offices. The Bayou State does print each candidate’s party affiliation on the ballot, which I agree is a good idea. As I see it, this is mainly done for the voters’ information.
Mississippi, incidentally, elects state and county judges as well as county election commissioners on a nonpartisan basis. Last November, I noticed for the first time that the judicial candidates had no party labels next to their names on the ballot, whereas the candidates for election commissioner did (this is evidently the way it’s always been done… I just never paid attention before).
Mississippi does not register voters by party.
Unless it has changed recently, Louisiana leaves the space blank next to each independent candidate’s name on the ballot. The same is true of candidates registered with unqualified parties.
In the early 1980s, when the Libertarian Party was unqualified, Henry Dart was a Libertarian candidate for the New Orleans City Council. He brought a federal suit to have his party label printed on the ballot next to his name. Dart lost (Dart v. Brown).
#4: The audacity of some Supreme Court judges, that they should decide, of all things, how states should organize their own government.