Unicameral idea didn't catch on; still just as valid

Those of us who grew up in McCook think nothing of driving down Norris Avenue, enjoying a summertime concert in Norris Park or, for the past few years, walking by the statue of George W. Norris, gazing across the street, seated in the bronze park bench in front of his home, copies of a couple of newspapers in his lap.

Those of us who moved here as adults may have known little about the late senator, or the impact he had on the state and nation through rural electrification, the Lame Duck Amendment or the system we Nebraskans take most for granted, the Unicameral.

Seventy-five years after Norris wore out two pairs of tires in his successful campaign to shelve the two-house system as outdated, inefficient and unnecessary, has he been proven right?

Norris argued that the bicameral system was modeled after the British Parliament, with the House of Commons elected from the people, and the House of Lords, appointed by the king. In practice, England is a unicameral, with real power resting in the lower house.

We have no trouble with a unicameral system at other levels of government, such as county commissions and school boards, and about half of the nations of the world are unicameral, as are many of their states and provinces.

Until the turn of the 20th century, bicameral city councils were common in the United States.

With continual calls for better cooperation in Washington, Nebraska's officially nonpartisan Legislature should help serve as a case study.

As envisioned by Norris, the public should replace the checks and balances provided by a second legislative body.

"Every act of the Legislature and every act of each individual must be transacted in the spotlight of publicity," Norris said.

The senator saw conference committees as having too much power, negotiating in secret and producing bills that could not be modified, only voted up or down.

Under Norris' system, amendments are proposed and debated on the chamber floor. Bills get a public hearing, five days must elapse between a bill's introduction and passage, and bills can contain only one subject.

There were 21 other efforts to establish unicamerals in 1937, but only Nebraska's was successful. A Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s, which required all legislative bodies to be apportioned according to population, rather than one by population and one by geographic lines, could have revived the unicameral movement, but didn't.

Implementation of the unicameral legislature in 1937 did, indeed, cut expenses, with the number of lawmakers reduced from 133 to 43. Committees were pared down from 61 to 18, and 581 bills were introduced in 1937, compared to twice that many in the previous session.

The last bicameral session in 1935 ran 110 days, passed 192 bills and cost $202,593. The first unicameral session two years later ran 98 days, passed 214 bills and cost $103,445.

Does it still save money? In a story about the Unicameral's 75th anniversary Friday, the Lincoln Journal Star noted that Nebraskans spend about $18 million a year for their legislature, about $9.86 per resident. That's above the national average of $9.54, but we doubt a two-house Legislature would improve Nebraska's balance sheet.

Yes, there are good arguments on both sides, but Norris' arguments for the unicameral system are as valid today as they were in 1937.