|
|
|
October 30, 1999
Unicameral issue debated at LWV meetingWhat's good, bad about legislative system?By GUY PRIEL Journal Staff Writer NEW ULM -- Whether Minnesota should become a unicameral legislature state, following in the footsteps of Nebraska, will become the major topic of discussion during the upcoming legislative session. Governor Jesse Ventura, as part of his "Big Plan" for Minnesota, hopes to make the state unicameral in an attempt to save money and make government more open, responsive and accountable. Members of the League of Women Voters, during a meeting Thursday, heard both sides of the issue regarding unicameral legislature. "A unicameral system provides a close connection between the people and the legislature that is not present in a bicameral system," Christine Olson of Madelia said. "It is based on population and is fairly even, because there will be one person for every 30,000 people or so." Under the current system of government, bills get bogged down in committees and it is sometimes hard to follow bills, she argued. "A unicameral system is not right for Minnesota," Doug Erickson of Jeffers said. "It looks good on the surface, but in the long run government becomes much too simple." The current system of checks and balances is good for the state and conference committees can help mediate and correct differences between representatives and provide a public forum for citizens, he said. "It has been said it is a slow process for making laws, but ordinary citizens can become informed," he said. "Unicameral legislation removes many of those opportunities to become informed." When one person represents a large geographic area it is difficult for the representative to hear all the issues, he said. "We shouldn't try to fix something that's not necessarily broken," he said. In order for a change to be made in the state Constitution, the issue would have to be put onto the ballot and brought before the voters during the general election, Senator Dennis Frederickson, R-New Ulm, said during a separate interview. The purpose of Thursday's meeting was to present both sides of the issue so factual information could be presented to the voters regarding accountability and responsiveness, which are the goals of the League, Spokesperson Ruth Ann Webster said. "Two houses have a historical significance because it provides more balance and more direct contact between people and legislators," Erickson said. "The house has smaller, more cohesive districts and the senate has larger, more diverse districts. That is the way it should be." Having unicameral government would be less complicated, because there would be only one person to contact rather than having to speak to three, Olson said. "I would hope it would correct a complicated situation in government," she said. "Its time has come. It is idealistic and scary, but it is the right thing to do." The Senators are there to keep people's trust in government, while the Representatives are there to listen to people and voters have to understand the system to know that the present system works, League member Joan Hoffman said. "The redundancy is in the co-committees," she said. "People have short political memories and that is what I fear is the problem. Saving money is not the reason to do this." Some members fear that having less representation will not allow for special expertise on some bills to be considered during the lawmaking process. Those in favor of a single house believe it will create less of a legislative expense, because it will eliminate conference committees. They also believe it is a relic of the past that was eliminated in 1964 when the Supreme Court stated representation should be based on population not geographic lines, Frederickson said. "I am an opponent to unicameral legislation because I like the current system of checks and balances," he said. "I like the difficulty it takes to pass laws. There is less chance of mistakes and more ideas can get examined so you end up with a better final product." In rural Minnesota there are large geographic districts that have three people representing them, but would have only two under unicameralism, which provides less opportunity for interaction, he said. "The system would be bad for rural Minnesota. It might make sense in larger metropolitan areas," he said. The proponents of the plan hope to be able to make Minnesota non-partisan again like it was prior to 1972, although state government is not particularly partisan in Minnesota, Frederickson said. "It is too easy for one party to dominate government under a unicameral system," he said.
|