The condition of the 2001 Minnesota Legislature has made it difficult to avoid the question: Would this be happening if we had a unicameral legislature?&t;!—-&t;.

Tuesday, June 26, 2001

The condition of the 2001 Minnesota Legislature has made it difficult to avoid the question: Would this be happening if we had a unicameral legislature?

The answer is no.

This is exactly the kind of mess Gov. Jesse Ventura called the downfall of the two-house system. We have two separate houses unable to agree on a wide range of spending bills. Most legislators have no say in the negotiations; instead, a handful of leaders are doing (or not doing) the negotiating. When the bills are crafted, it’s done by conference committees, which are stacked with each chamber’s long-time members and political favorites.

Under a unicameral system, only one house would need to pass bills, not two. We would have no conference committees and we wouldn’t have this problem.

While most legislators sit at home, frustrated and powerless, it again comes down to high-level negotiations and closed-door meetings.

Some argue that this is good for the state; that having experienced legislators working in these pressure situations is wise, and that it should be difficult to make deals because it keeps ill-considered laws from making the books. But eliminating one legislative house would still preserve a two-party structure where each side works furiously to counter the other.

The bicameral system has created a state government that is too cumbersome, too exclusionary and too difficult for citizens to follow. While the state sits on the brink of a government shutdown, the state’s residents can’t understand why negotiators and conference committees aren’t getting their jobs done.

Ventura’s unicameral proposal had merit – enough that it deserved to be on the ballot. This year’s legislative events should be a spark that reignites a serious look at changing the way our legislature operates.