ASLCS - The Journal - A Unicameral Legislature

A Unicameral Legislature

By:
Patrick J. O'Donnell
Clerk of the Legislature
Nebraska

Volume 2, Number 1 Spring 1996

Unicameral and Nonpartisan - the two basic tenets that have been the basis of making laws in Nebraska for nearly 60 years.

During my 18-year tenure as Clerk of the Legislature, my colleagues around the country have often been curious about this "unique" legislative arrangement. Generally, "how a unicameral legislature works" is misunderstood by many political observers. The nonpartisan aspect is equally difficult to address because to do so is totally foreign to the experiences of most people who are involved with the lawmaking process.

Thus, this article will attempt to discuss the two unique features of the Nebraska Legislature and try to address any potential misgivings my colleagues may have. I would preface this discussion by noting that when all is said and done, the role and mission for this Legislature is the same as that of all the other state legislatures, and how we accomplish that is more similar than dissimilar.

Furthermore, it might be noted that with ongoing changes in our traditional two-party system and the organizational dynamics that such changes might hold, the "old" familiar ways of doing business are being questioned. I am not suggesting that the way state legislatures are now structured or organized is going to change. However, in this era of reexamination, I think it is possible, if not likely, that our comfortable assumptions about legislative dynamics will be questioned. After all, some of the same forces that were at work in the 1920s and 1930s are at work again today (i.e., emergence of organized reform groups with a perception that government is not responsive to the average person). As a result, I have noticed during the past three years that we have had more contacts, more questions, and more information requests about the Nebraska Legislature from other state legislators, legislative staff, and citizen-oriented interest groups than we had in my first 15 years here. For these reasons, I hope the following comments offer some insights about how unicameralism works in Nebraska.

Historical Background

The Nebraska Unicameral Legislature was born through the initiative process. In 1934 several progressive-minded, populist-oriented state leaders were successful in placing on the ballot the following proposition:

That Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution of Nebraska be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 1. Commencing with the regular session of the Legislature to be held in January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, the legislative authority of the state shall be vested in a Legislature consisting of one chamber. .

Sec. 7. Members of the Legislature shall be elected for a term of two years. . . . Each member shall be nominated and elected in a nonpartisan manner and without any indication on the ballot that he is affiliated with or endorsed by any political party or organization. . . .1

The idea of a unicameral legislature in Nebraska emerged at the turn of the century.2 The issue was introduced, discussed, and debated during several legislative sessions between 1913 and 1933. A proposal in 1920, at the state's last Constitutional Convention, failed by a single vote. An initiative petition effort in 1923 failed.

To be sure, there were many who strongly influenced its passage. In 1934, however, U. S. Senator George W. Norris, who by this time had spent over thirty years in Congress, decided to devote his energy to passage of the plan. With his years of experience in government and his strong following, he deserves great credit for promoting the measure and securing its adoption.3 *

It is interesting to note that Senator Norris's support was contingent upon including the nonpartisan element. He viewed party organization as a barrier between the elected and the electorate, rather than a means to formulate constructive alternative perspectives on issues.

During the debate surrounding the initiative petition before the election of November 1934, only two of the state's newspapers editorialized in support of the unicameralism idea. However, several other events occurred that helped the proposal overcome the resistance by the press. First, in 1934 the nation was in the depths of a depression, and the idea attracted the attention of some who saw an economic advantage. Secondly, petition supporters designed a method that allowed for reimbursing circulators based on the number of signatures gathered, and Norris personally contributed the financial assistance for the final effort that allowed the signature requirement to be satisfied. Finally, popular propositions allowing for parimutuel wagering and the repeal of prohibition were also on that same ballot in November 1934. This convergence of circumstances created a unique election climate.

In the end, all three ballot propositions prevailed.4 The experiment of unicameralism had been passed in over 90 per cent of the state's precincts and counties, and the final statewide tally found it prevailing by a three to two margin among those who had expressed a preference.5

Two Unique Features

Nebraska's Legislature is unique in two fundamental ways. First, our legislature consists of a single legislative body made up of 49 elected senators who serve four-year terms. (Legislative terms were changed in 1962 from two-year terms to four-year terms.) Because of our unicameral nature, several checks and balances have been built into our constitutional framework. For example, Article III, Section 14, of the Nebraska Constitution provides that "No such vote upon the final passage of any bill shall be taken, however, until five legislative days after its introduction nor until it has been on file for final reading and passage for at least one legislative day." The purpose of this provision was to avoid the hasty enactment of legislative proposals that do not face the scrutiny of a second house.

In addition, Nebraska's legislative rules essentially require four readings of bills as opposed to the more traditional three readings found in other state legislatures. The first reading occurs when the bill is introduced and referred to a committee. It is not unusual for amendments to be offered and considered at the other three readings. As a result, the Nebraska Legislature has separate debate stages at each of the other readings that typically are several days, if not weeks, apart. In this way our rules prescribe an extra check against hastily enacted legislation. It is interesting to note that Senator Norris was unimpressed with the traditional argument that bicameralism served as a check by one house against the other. Norris believed "that what actually happened too often was the shifting of responsibility from one house to the other, with bills being passed by one with the knowledge that they would be killed across the rotunda."6

A third component of the checks and balances of our system is that legislative rules require all bills to receive a public hearing. This requirement imposes a measure of scrutiny on each proposal, which is essential to assuring quality during the legislative process.

Finally and most importantly, unicameralism was intended in part to bring the legislature closer to the people. Keep in mind the prevailing political structure in this country in 1934. Typically the house or assembly consisted of members elected, based in part, but not exclusively, on population figures. The senate usually was more representative of geographical areas. The principle of "one man, one vote" as promulgated by the U. S. Supreme Court was still many years away.

* Senator Norris served in the U. S. House from 1903-1913, and in the Senate from 1913-1943. In recognition of his efforts, we have named our chamber the "George W. Norris Legislative Chamber."

With the convening of the first unicameral in 1937, the legislature's composition was based more on population than geography. We all know and understand the implications of that political dynamic.

The second unique feature of the Nebraska Legislature is the election of legislators on a nonpartisan ballot. Candidates file and run without party affiliation reflected on the ballot. In races where more than two candidates have filed for a particular legislative district, the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes move on to the general election ballot following the primary elections. A goal of those supporting the nonpartisan unicameral in 1934 was to bring government closer to the people. One indication of closeness of government to people is the extent to which the public is aware of and knows what the legislature does. Furthermore, studies suggest the more people know about their legislature, the more favorable they are towards it. Several polls conducted in the 1980s showed Nebraskans consistently had a positive view of their legislature. For example, a poll commissioned in 1988 by the Lincoln Journal-Star newspaper showed the legislature with a 58 per cent approval rating. Based on what I have seen from other polls on other legislative bodies in this country, 58 per cent is a very respectable showing. You may recall from earlier in this article that Senator Norris felt this feature was as important, if not more important, than unicameralism. He conditioned his support for the ballot measure by insisting the nonpartisan aspect be a part of the initiative. The theory underlying Norris's position was that members vote on principle rather than on party line. He contended "that the partisan election of state legislators was usually colored by national issues, most of which did not affect directly the activity of the state. If not hampered by partisan connections, therefore, the legislators could give their full attention to the state's interests and welfare. Because the state's responsibilities were in no sense partisan, he felt his plan would enable the legislature to function more like a business corporation." 7

Interestingly, there has been no serious effort since 1934 to restore our legislature to a partisan-based system, although the political party platforms of both major parties have, at one time or another, advocated this change.

One effect of nonpartisanship has been to discourage political parties from playing a significant role in selecting candidates for the legislature.8 However, since 1967, and in particular since 1980, there is general agreement that party involvement has increased, although that involvement is largely informal. Political parties today are more involved in candidate recruitment, even though political affiliation does not appear on the ballot. They also deliver some in-kind services such as the production of mailing labels. Direct financial assistance from political parties would be unprecedented.

Over the years, several academic studies have probed and analyzed the nonpartisan aspect. Richard Marvel, the Nebraska Legislature's first two-term speaker, concluded in his doctoral thesis that "decision-making in the unicameral was a complex operation involving a struggle between the conservative and liberal elements of the state."9 Marvel also concluded that moderation highlighted the decision-making process.

A second study discovered that "the Nebraska Legislature was all but devoid of any party influence and that the decision-making process was one of moderation or consensus voting."10

George Norris felt that nonpartisanship would work best in a unicameral body. A bicameral body by necessity requires a greater need for "coordination, unification, and some common denominator to achieve efficiency."11 In addition, Norris felt that a crucial ingredient for the success of a nonpartisan legislature may lie in a small, manageable number of legislators. In 1934 the initiative created a legislature of 43 members. The Nebraska Legislature today consists of 49 members, which is not dramatically different from what was originally envisioned.

Other evaluations of the nonpartisan aspect of the Nebraska Legislature have been done. As you might expect, some have been positive while others have concluded otherwise.

However, most Nebraska unicameral legislative observers would agree that one of the most striking features of our system is the nonpartisan political environment that generally pervades Nebraska's political culture. That feature alone may justify the nonpartisan aspect of the Nebraska Legislature. Most observers would agree that the homogeneity of our society, minimal urbanization, small population base, and a personalized political process, coupled with the traditional individualism of our people, would probably continue to be a feature of the Nebraska Legislature even if legislators were chosen on a partisan ballot.

Analysis

Having described the relevant historical background, the fundamental question that needs to be answered is "how does this unique legislative structure fulfill its responsibilities?"

In 1971, the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures published "The Sometime Governments."12 It was portrayed as a critical study of the 50 American legislatures. While there are elements and analyses within the report with which one can disagree, the methodology used, I believe, still represents a fair way to evaluate a state legislature's ability to meet its responsibilities.

The Citizens Conference classified and ranked each state legislature in terms of: 1) function, 2) accountability, 3) how informed the body is during its decision making, 4) the body's independence, and 5) whether it represented the constituency it served. In reviewing and evaluating each of these criteria, the Nebraska Legislature continues to score well.

A legislature that "functions" effectively performs several basic activities. It must establish and fund necessary programs and evaluate them on a continuing basis. It should deliberate on significant state problems, reach a consensus, and educate the public. To meet these goals a state legislature must manage its time effectively, provide sufficient trained personnel and technological resources, and furnish a proper work environment such as hearing rooms for committees and offices for members. A legislature needs an adequate number of committees but should guard against creating too many, which can diffuse committee jurisdiction and oversight responsibilities. Committee assignments should be handled responsibly, and there should be a mechanism to insure continuity between sessions.

In all these areas, the Nebraska Legislature rates quite well. It is a small but manageable body of 49 members. It has 14 standing committees, and by rule, no member can have a conflict in meeting assignments because of conflicts in the meeting times of the committees. There are no standing subcommittees.

Each Nebraska legislator has a private office and a personal staff, and each standing committee has professional staff. Five central support divisions provide additional resources.

The standing committees function during the interim, and legislative leadership (Speaker, Rules Committee, Executive Board) works in close coordination to ensure that there are adequate resources and budgets to support legislative operations. The speaker, by rule, has primary responsibility for managing legislative time. This becomes especially important because our constitution limits session length to 90 and 60 legislative days in alternating years. Obviously, we need not worry about conference committee procedures or the development of joint rules and joint committees.

The Citizens Conference recognized "accountability" as an important element in judging how well a particular state legislature operates. Accountability can be measured in several ways. First, people must feel they understand what is going on or at least can find out. The process must and should be open. Efforts need to be made to expand on the number and type of resources which help the public discern what is happening. Finally, the legislature itself must be open and receptive to new ideas offered by new members. It may not accept all these new ideas, but new members should have the opportunity to contribute.

Under these threshold tests, how does Nebraska fare?

First, it is a relatively small body made up of 49 individual member districts. There are no multi-member districts.
Leadership is selected on the floor with each member voting by secret ballot.
Committee processes are open to the public, with hearings scheduled regularly with at least a seven-day public notice on each issue. As a result, the public knows at what time and on what day a particular committee meets.
Committee executive sessions are open to the press.
All floor debate and all committee testimony are transcribed and available for public inspection.
The physical resources provided allow the public to come, observe, testify, and monitor the activities of the legislature.
Records are maintained in both the committee and on the floor of every vote taken. Bills and amendments are readily available to anyone who asks.
Individuals and/or groups can receive a subscription to every bill, amendment, and daily journal for a nominal fee.
Reporting requirements are in place for lobbyists. Members, while not precluded from voting, must file a Conflict of Interest Statement if the situation warrants it.

As a result, I believe Nebraska scores well on the accountability element.

An "informed" legislature was the third criterion applied by the Citizens Committee. In this information age, it may sound trite to suggest that an "informed legislature" is fundamentally important in how well a particular legislature does its job. I would suggest, given the technological advancements of the last 10 years, the question is not how well informed a particular legislature is, but rather what resources have been used in the management of that information. To be valuable information today, it must be timely, succinct and factual. The development of and the planning for the utilization of information resources occupies a significant amount of time for those of us who manage within the legislative environment.

In Nebraska, as I am sure in many other places, we constantly monitor our information delivery systems. For example, in 1993-94 we asked the National Conference of State Legislatures to evaluate computer services provided to members and staff of the Nebraska Legislature. The study had four primary purposes. They included: (1) assess the current computer services provided to members and staff; (2) review the policies and procedures governing access to the legislative computer system; (3) identify current and potential future computer needs of members and staff; and (4) compare Nebraska's computer system and services with those in similar states.13 The study allowed us to assess our state of preparedness and readiness in being responsive to the needs of the legislative institution.

We continually strive through a working group of senior legislative staff managers to evaluate the needs of members. It is difficult to stay ahead, given the pace of technological innovation. However, it is vitally important, I believe, to continuously evaluate and upgrade legislative information delivery systems. I still believe in the old adage, "the better the information, the better the decision making."

As this article is being written, we are engaged in a chamber automation project. It is our ultimate goal to have laptop technology available to our members to allow easier access to all legislative data bases while either on the floor of the legislature or in their legislative districts.

"Independence" was identified as one of the elements of an effective legislature. An independent legislature decides how long it should meet and establishes its own agenda. It must be a coequal branch of government. It must exercise its program evaluation functions regularly. Finally, an "independent" legislature should develop a degree of independence from outside influences, including special interest groups.

While the Nebraska constitution mandates the length of regular sessions, the Legislature does have the prerogative of calling itself into special session. How we have fared with respect to our relationship with the executive branch is left to one's own subjective judgment. It is reasonable to assume, however, the more independent a legislature is, the more friction may develop between the legislative branch and the executive branch. In Nebraska over the last 20 years, with our development of personal and professional staff, adoption of information technology resources, and improvements in the environmental infrastructure, we have seen a fair share of disagreements with executive branch officials. We have continued to expand our legislative oversight responsibilities.

How influential lobbyists are here in Nebraska is a matter of conjecture. Such an evaluation would require a much greater statistical and demographical analysis than I can accomplish in this article. In this era of term limits, the dynamics of legislator-lobbyist relationships will be interesting to watch.

Finally, how "representative" the Nebraska Legislature is compared to the other 49 states is left to one's own analytical perspective. The composition of today's Legislature is dramatically different from 20 years ago. More women and younger, less established members have replaced the predominantly older white male businessman/farmer membership that was prevalent in the 50s and 60s. Minority representation has remained approximately the same (Nebraska has a low minority ratio within its population).

In one significant way the Nebraska Legislature is dramatically different from many other state legislatures. I firmly believe the Nebraska Legislature is one of the most, if not the most, "democratic" legislatures in the country. It is a very freewheeling process unbridled by party caucus or a tradition of leaders exercising great powers. New members can become involved in policy questions very quickly if they choose to do so. There is a price to be paid for this, however. The more democratic, the less disciplined the body tends to be. The more freewheeling, the less predictable the body becomes.

If you believe, however, that effectiveness of individual legislators is enhanced in a more wide-open process (such as the one we have in Nebraska), then the higher the score the Nebraska Legislature deserves for its representativeness. In Nebraska I believe individual legislators may accomplish goals much sooner in their legislative careers than their counterparts in other states.

Conclusion

I have not attempted in this article to become an advocate for a nonpartisan unicameral legislature. Each state's political culture will ultimately decide what works best in their political environment.

The fundamental question of how responsibly and effectively each legislative body performs its responsibilities will be decided by the voting electorate. In 1971 the Citizens Conference on State Legislatures ultimately ranked the Nebraska Legislature ninth out of the 50 state legislatures when measured against the five criteria identified earlier in this article.

I have no reason to believe that Nebraska would rank any lower today. In fact, in some areas we would grade better than we did in 1971. That is not to suggest we are better or more effective than our sister legislatures. Rather, it suggests to me that despite the uniqueness of our nonpartisan unicameral legislature, the people of Nebraska and many legislative political observers have concluded that the Nebraska Legislature performs well.

Aristotle once said that "political society exists for the sake of noble living."* That acknowledgment applies to all of our state legislatures regardless of certain distinguishable characteristics unique to each of us.

* This quote adorns the south facade parapet of the Nebraska State Capitol Building.

1 Proposed Constitutional Amendment, 1934.

2 Jim McKee, Reasons behind unicameral legislature appear to stand, Lincoln Journal, June 5, 1995.

3 Hugo F. Srb, The Unicameral Legislature - A Successful Innovation, Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 40, No. 4, June 1961, pp. 1-2.

4 Nebraska Blue Book, p. 212.

5 Robert Sittig, The Nebraska Unicameral After Fifty Years, 1986, p. 1.

6 Robert D. Miewald, Nebraska Government & Politics, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, 1984, p. 59.

7 Ibid., p. 60.

8 Ibid., p. 75.

9 R. Marvel, Decision-Making in the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature for the 1959, 1961, and 1963 Sessions 54 (doctoral thesis, 1966, on file in U. of Neb.-Lincoln Love Library).

10 B. Kolasa, The Nebraska Political System: A Study in Apartisan Politics 479 (doctoral thesis, 1969, on file in U. of Neb.-Lincoln Love Library).

11 G. Saylor, et al., The Unicameral Legislature: Its Operation in Nebraska 36 (Neb. State Teachers' Ass'n: Teachers' Pamphlet No. 5, 1937, on file in U. of Neb.-Lincoln Love Library).

12 The Citizens Conference on State Legislatures, The Sometime Governments, Bantam Books, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, 1971.

13 Rich Jones, Jo Anne Bourquard, Stephen Thergesen, A Study of Computer Services in the Nebraska Legislature, Executive Summary, March 1994, p. v.

For more information about ASLCS, write or call:

Joan Barilla
National Conference of State Legislatures
7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
Phone: 303/856-1349
FAX: 303/364-7800
E-mail: joan.barilla@ncsl.org