Issue
Brief: Unicameral Legislature
|HOME| CALENDAR | ACTION | LEGISLATIVE | MN NOW TIMES | ACTIVIST LINKS | SITE MAP |
"Efficiency is not the goal or purpose of democracy. Saving money is not the goal or purpose of democracy. Representation is the issue," stated Elizabeth Merz of the Fergus Falls chapter of NOW in one of many responses to the Legislative committee’s call for opinions.
Although one would expect the fiscal savings of a unicameral system over a bicameral system to be significant, according to the Minnesota State House Research Department, the cost of the legislature is just a tiny part of the cost of state government. An annual savings of [possibly] $20 million is not trivial, yet it would only reduce the state’s total budget by less than two-tenths of one percent, a saving that must be weighed against the loss of benefits of bicameralism.
The bicameral structure is more multifacetly responsive to the variety of public interest in diverse societies. A legislature composed of two independent bodies of lawmakers is inherently more stable in membership and temperate in thought and action than a one-house legislature. Each body is composed of legislators of different membership, terms of office, perspectives, leadership, and customs. This brings a valuable diversity of outlook to legislative decisions along with the notion that making laws should be deliberate, difficult and even frustrating.
One argument in favor of a unicameral system claims the "simplicity and directness of the process [would] encourage citizens to pay attention to legislative activity and permit them to better follow and understand the actions of their representatives." But again according to House Research, observation does not support the unicameralists’ belief that procedural simplicity enhances the accountability of elected officials by fostering citizen vigilance and comprehension. The citizenry of Nebraska, the only state in the union to govern by a single house, is not noticeably more mindful or informed of legislative activity than the citizenry of Minnesota with its current system. Nebraska legislators are not known to be any more alert to constituent interests than our legislators.
Checks and balances within the legislative branch are also touted as arcane by those in favor of abolishing the state’s bicameral legislature. Originally the two houses were to accommodate the Lords and the Commons in Parliament. The framers of the U.S. government borrowed this concept and applied it to state representation and populace representation, the Senate and the House respectively. But checks and balances are exactly what are needed within the state legislative branch to ensure careful consideration and thoughtful crafting of Minnesota law. If left without these protections within the legislative branch, the only checks and balances available will be those between the executive veto and judicial review. As Nebraska has experienced, this path results in numerous overridden vetoes and a Supreme Court that routinely overturns as unconstitutional an excessive number of laws produced by the single body. In today’s litigious world, individual citizens should not be drug through the courts with the burden of rectifying ill-considered laws
So why not let the people decide by referendum that unicameralism is not in their best interest? As reported in the Governmental Operations committee, seventy percent of the people of Minnesota want and need more information to make a responsible decision. This concept requires more than a three-month debate to register in the minds of the voters. If this bill is not adopted this year as a state referendum, it can be introduced in later years. Currently the proposal for a unicameral system is not fully developed, therefore if placed on the ballot the public would be voting on a mere concept, not a crafted plan. We have elected legislators to be our voice and conscience, therefore encourage your legislators to responsibly limit proposing referenda until the people and the plan are adequately prepared.
Minnesota NOW Position:
MN NOW opposes legislation to establish a Unicameral Legislature.
© 2000 Minnesota NOW