Unicameral legislation: when smaller government is not better

April 7, 10:56 AMHartford Conservative ExaminerJohn Talleos

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Hartford Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  Few people stop to think why legislative bodies comprise of representatives in one chamber and senators in another.  If Senator Gary LeBeau (D-East Hartford) gets his way, most people in the state of Connecticut will.  Sen. LeBeau wants to eliminate one chamber and make the legislature unicameral (as opposed to bi-cameral).  The idea here is to save money, reduce government and allow more responsiveness to constituents.  The terms will be 4 years as opposed to 2, like it is now, and pay the super legislatures $60,000.  60 members will make up the body.  Currently there are 151 house members with 36 senators.  The new branch will also work full time instead of part time.

   LeBeau seems to think this will work because Sweden, Costa Rica and Hungary are doing it as well as the state of Nebraska.  Nothing against these places but the list is unimpressive just the same.

   Here's the problem with the idea.  The house end of the chamber has members elected by districts.  These districts have interest that are more defined given their small size while senators represent wide and diverse areas covering different towns.  Although the representative is more responsive to the interest of their particular community, the senator is less so.  The senator has to weigh each bill according to how it affects regions of different interests and opinion.  Unlike the senator legislatures are vulnerable to popular uprisings, senators are able to keep this in check.  The one thing that dilutes the effectiveness of Connecticut's senators from stopping rash legislation is its term are just two years instead of 4 as in most states.   The US senate has longer terms then congress but also less then a third of the chamber is up for reelection in a given cycle which gives it greater power over legislation that may be popular but unsound.

  To eliminate a chamber may take a change in the constitution which will call for a state wide referendum.  If Sen LeBeau thinks he has a case it ought to be deeper then just saying it will save us a couple of bucks and then citing Nebraska.  One body in the general assembly will be unchecked on the one hand, unresponsive to the interest of smaller communities on the other.  If there is an election of a popular politician of either party the state could end up with one party controlling two branch's of government with no members of the opposition party, which is more then likely the  motivation here.  Certainly if money and the size of government were a problem just eliminate bureaucracies that have no responsibilities to the democratic process.

 This is an important proposal that ought to be debated on principles of the highest order.  This is not like closing a local post office.  In an April 6 editorial the Hartford Courant agrees with the senator in that  "if legislators put the squeeze on municipalities, as they are doing by freezing or cutting grants and other steps, shouldn't the legislature do its part too? The question answers itself: Of course."  What's fair is fair.  "Millions of dollars could be saved each year from the reduction in total costs for salary, health care, pension and other expenses for fewer lawmakers and staff members."  Surely the proposal has far greater ramifications then just money.  The question is how should Connecticut best govern itself.  What is the purpose of a representative or a senator?  Is the likely prospect of one party government a good thing?  In citing Nebraska the Courant says  "Nebraska is not Connecticut, of course. It has half as many people and the challenges faced by its single chamber are arguably fewer and less complicated."  this ought to bolster the point that unicameral may not work here, they continue "There are only 49 members, called senators, in the single chamber. They work part-time and are paid only $12,000 a year with some expenses. And they are elected without party label. There is no majority or minority caucus or party agendas. That works well, too."  Well maybe for a state half the size, like they say, with fewer challenges then Connecticut but this business that the single chamber politicians will have no party affiliation is nonsense.  Either a legislature has political principles or he or she doesn't and when they do, what are they.  Compound the problem when there is no majority/minority caucus, or the added veto power over the governor.  Do we really want a branch of government to have one party rule with greater power over the executive?