|
My friend Alan Bedenko wrote an interesting post on Sunday where he calls for the downsizing of the New York State Legislature from two houses to one house. The example he cites is Nebraska, whose state legislature is unicameral and, to go even further, elects its members in a non-partisan manner.
Alan isn't the first to bring this up. I know that a few members of this community have raised the prospects of downsizing the legislature from two houses to one. It is an interesting idea and one that is certainly worthy of discussion.
I am one who opposes the idea of a unicameral legislature. My reasons for this can be broken up into a few parts:
(1) The dysfunctional nature of the New York State Legislature. The dysfunction exists not because of our bicameral system, but because of the way business is conducted in both houses. Leadership is allowed to dominate and reform goes nowhere, especially if the leaders (i.e. Shelly Silver) don't like the reform that is being offered. A unicameral legislature wouldn't change that unless we change the ways of the legislature. So whether it's one house or two houses, we have work to do.
(2) A bicameral legislature has been proven to work at the highest level in our land. The House and Senate complement each other and both serve a purpose. In New York, the same could happen if we allow rank-and-file legislators to be just as important as the leadership. You don't see Harry Reid running for president. You see Barack Obama, formerly the junior senator from Illinois, or Hillary Clinton, formerly the junior senator from New York, running for president. Having legislators in New York be candidates for higher office would be a great gauge of how well or legislative system is working.
(3) While checks and balances exist no matter how many houses you have, there is a greater check when a bicameral legislature is in place. With two houses, you have a smaller check that each house places on the other. One house can disapprove of legislation while another house approves it. For example, the House and Senate have conference sessions that help form better bills so that it will pass in both houses. Having two houses that are operating efficiently helps and makes government better.
But the arguments for an unicameral legislature are strong. One point Alan brought up on Sunday is affordability. Paying legislators their base $79,500 salaries (plus all the added perks like paid travel expenses, daily living expenses and stipends for chairing committees or holding leadership positions) is expensive, even for a state like New York where we have 19 million people and a huge budget. Factor in the staffing for those senators and members of the Assembly and you are talking about a lot of taxpayer dollars going just for legislative payroll.
You could also make the case that reform would be easier with one house instead of two. Trying to institute reforms in both houses of our legislature has been a trying experience. For all the talk of reform in the New York State Senate, there has been very little said about reforms in the Assembly. If we are going to have an efficient and improved legislature, we will need both houses to be on board with reforms. So far, only the Senate has been the focus of reform.
Where do you stand? Do you support a unicameral legislature? Or would you rather have two houses that we improve upon and strive to fix the current system? |
