 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Sign up for LWVMN E-News: |
Testimony Opposing a Unicameral LegislaturePresented February 7, 2000 to a joint hearing of the Senate Election Laws Committee and the House Government Operations and Veterans Committee The League does not support or oppose candidates or political parties. Because I believe in good government and I believe and Minnesota continues to lead the way in achieving this important aim, I am pleased to be here tonight. The League opposes restructuring the Minnesota Legislature to a single house. When it was determined that this would be an important issue in this session of the legislature a statewide League committee was convened to study the issue through reading studies and hearing presentations from advocates and opponents. Subsequently the committee furnished each member of the League information on the unicameral legislature with arguments from both proponents and opponents. Members then convened in local units to discuss the proposal and forward their conclusions to the state league as a recommendation for state action. The overwhelming response was opposition to a unicameral legislature. In the light of member response, the statewide committee's recommendation and in accordance with League principles and current positions, the state board of directors of the League of Women Voters formally adopted a position of opposition. This has been an intense and thoughtful process. It is our opinion that a unicameral legislature does not provide sufficient checks and balances in the legislative process - the slower, more deliberative process of a bicameral legislature is more likely to produce good legislation. In a unicameral system, representation for all Minnesotans would be cut in half. Since each citizen would be represented by only one member, those citizens who hold minority views may find it more difficult to be represented in a unicameral system. A unicameral legislature would be less likely to represent the complexity of interests and diversity of all Minnesota residents. Of particular importance, citizens in geographically large districts already have less easy access to their legislators. By taking away one of the two members who represent citizens in these areas, a unicameral system would exacerbate the situation. Some believe that government should be run like a business. Although it could be argued that the administrative branch might benefit from a more business-like approach, the legislative process differs fundamentally from a business in its mission, and therefore should not be similarly structured. Restructuring to a unicameral legislature seems to be a disproportionate response to the stated problems. The current legislative system may be flawed, but is not broken. Perceived problems in the current system could be remedied by changes in the rules or adherence to the rules already in place, rather than restructuring to a new system. For example, it is possible to reduce the authority of conference committees by using joint committees more and conference committees less. Legislative rules on conference committee appointments, authority and procedures to assure maximum representation among legislators and clear enforceable rules can be adopted. The end of session crush could be prevented by ending the practice of concentrating most decision in a few bills brought out for passage late in the session. Set and adhere to committee deadlines. To enhance the deliberative process, make better use of interim study committees and increase participation by taking study committees out of the Capitol and into the communities and permit citizen testimony. While the League of Women Voters supports compulsory voter referendum on constitutional amendments, the current proposal for the constitutional question as it would appear on the ballot doesn't fully explain to the voters what the unicameral legislature would look like or how it would function. The amendment contains no details of structure or operation. The voters, in essence, will be voting for a concept and not a plan. The Rochester Post-Bulletin, in an editorial cartoon January 5, 2000, depicted it as a "car under a blanket". If you put it on the ballot and then call for public discussion without a look at the specifics- there is still nothing to discuss. The League feels the legislature has the responsibility to debate this issue. The American legislative process was not designed to allow legislators to opt out of highly politicized issues. The issue should be carefully scrutinized on its merits. This is the place to have the debate. Thank you for allowing the League of Women Voters to testify on this very important issue. February 7, 2000 Press Release Other Public Statements: |
|