Nebraska Unicameral

• Publication year: 2021

76 Nebraska L. Rev. 791. Nebraska Unicameral

791

Kim Robak*

The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction 792
II. Background 793
III. Why and How the Unicameral Works 799
A. Organization 799
B. Process 801
C. Partisanship 802
D. The Lobby 803
IV. Why a Nonpartisan Unicameral Is Superior to a
Bicameral System 803
A. Duplication 804
B. Representative and Open Process 806
C. Nonpartisanship 807
D. Leadership 809
E. Lobby 811
F. Balance by the Executive 811
G. Summary of Strengths 812
V. The Nebraska Legislature Will Remain the Sole
Unicameral 812

I. INTRODUCTION

The word Nebraska conjures up images of college football and the Unicameral. Each is a notable institution with an almost mystical

792

quality. That each has been successful for so long is remarkable. It is easy to explain the Huskers' accomplishments - great coaching and recruiting. But, the reasons for the Unicameral's prosperity are less apparent. Now sixty years old, Nebraskans seem to have accepted the Unicameral, but its one house and nonpartisan features remain unique among legislatures in the United States.

This Article will not discuss the success of Nebraska football, but it will address the baffling nature of the nonpartisan Nebraska Unicameral, how it came to be, why and how it works, why it is superior to partisan bicameral legislatures, and why it will remain the sole non-partisan unicameral in the nation.(fn1) Much scholarship has addressed the Nebraska Unicameral from the perspective of those who helped to create it,(fn2) were part of its process,(fn3) and have studied it.(fn4)Yet, little has been written about the benefits of a nonpartisan system in a one-house legislature. This Article attempts to fill that void and explain why the nonpartisan unicameral system is preferable.

Throughout its relatively short history, attempts have been made to return the Unicameral to a partisan organization. This is true in recent years.(fn5) On these occasions, the political parties heat up the rhetoric, urging that committee chairpersons be elected by partisan

793

coalitions, that the Speaker be determined by the majority party,(fn6) or that the entire operation be changed in the Nebraska Constitution to a partisan process.(fn7) Despite these efforts, the members of the Unicameral, as they have done for the past sixty years, ignore these pleas and elect the member they believe will best serve the body as a leader - - often a Democrat, despite a Republican majority.(fn8) While many senators join the Legislature with strong partisan ties and the belief that a nonpartisan system is foolish, within a short time they become true believers in the one-house, nonpartisan process. Ask any senator why they keep the system and you will hear the same answer - -it works.

II. BACKGROUND

United States Senator George Norris is credited with creating the Nebraska Unicameral. After five terms in the United States House of Representatives and five terms in the United States Senate as both a Republican and an Independent, Norris was passionate that a nonpar-tisan unicameral was the only way to ensure that government was accountable to the people.

While a unicameral form of government was his passion, it was not originally Norris' idea. Unicameralism was often advocated at the turn of the nineteenth century.(fn9) An initiative effort and a constitutional convention to eliminate one of two then-existing houses were each attempted in Nebraska in reaction to nonresponsive legislatures. Each effort failed.(fn10) While there was much interest in Norris' idea,

794

there was little or no support for it. Spurred by these losses, Norris became actively involved in the debate in 1923 when he published his famous expose in the New York Times, "A Model State Legislature."(fn11)Norris advocated more than just a one-house legislature. He firmly believed partisan politics were detrimental to the democratic process and was vocal in promoting his view of partisan politics.(fn12)

Often using his experiences to explain his convictions, Norris would tell a story from his first term as a Congressman from Ne-braska. He had been assigned by the Republican Speaker of the House to the House Committee on Public Grounds and Buildings. At the initial meeting of the committee, discussions ensued about a public building bill. It appeared obvious to everyone, except Norris, that the Speaker would make the decision as to whether or not a bill would be introduced. A motion to seek a conference with the Speaker to obtain his permission to introduce the bill passed unanimously. Norris was flabbergasted. The Speaker was not a member of the committee and was not informed of the issues at stake. He could not understand why the Speaker should play a role in the matter, much less determine the final decision. It soon became crystal clear to Norris that the Speaker's power was tied to his partisan power to appoint committee members and to bestow favors on his friends.(fn13) Norris later stated,

I believe the light dawned upon me and I began to see for the first time that the Republican Party was subject to influences similar to those that I believed controlled the Democratic Party; and soon I learned there was no difference between the parties . . . Both of them were machine-controlled.(fn14)

Norris discovered that blind partisanship was the way of life in Congress as well. He was asked to follow congressional leadership when his conscience told him otherwise, which led to illogical positions.(fn15) Yet, the system worked because it often resulted in legislative favors and appointments. To get along, you had to go along; and Norris could not stomach a system that played such games hidden from public view. He held his ground and frequently ignored party leadership.(fn16) As a result, he was not recognized with congressional appointments or pork. He soon became famous, however, for his radical departure from the norm.(fn17)

795

In 1934, Colonel John G. Maher, a Lincoln insurance man and a friend and supporter of Norris, called a meeting to discuss an initiative effort to create a unicameral legislature. Norris attended, as did 800 others, including a political science professor, John P. Senning, and former Congressman John Norton.(fn18) It was from this meeting that Norris embarked on what he later described as a journey to create a legacy that would benefit Nebraskans and their children long after he was dead.(fn19) Teams were formed to garner signatures and support. Still, the idea did not seem to take hold. Circulators were so hard to find that the group ended up paying people to gather signatures - a nickel per name.(fn20)

The issue was considered all but dead when Norris arrived back in the state only weeks before the election.(fn21) Without hesitation, he headed out across the state, paying his own way, to sell the idea.(fn22)His arguments were threefold: (1) the fundamental principle of two houses was no longer valid; (2) the Conference Committee in essence created a third house that was secretive and antidemocratic; and (3) a nonpartisan legislature would be more open and less prone to special interests, and less expensive.(fn23)

First, Norris argued the fundamental principle of a two-house system was not valid for state government. The legacy of two houses originated in England, where the House of Lords was created to protect the rich aristocracy from the commoners in the House of Com

796

mons.(fn24) Likewise, the American federal system, based on the English version, was constructed as a check and balance. The Senate originally was elected by the state legislatures(fn25) to represent the states or property. The House of Representatives was elected by the people to represent the individual and was the only opportunity at the time for a direct vote by the people.(fn26) When the states drafted their constitutions, they simply followed the federal model. Interestingly, most major cities also followed the federal model and designed two council systems.(fn27)

Norris had no reverence for the time-entrenched system that originally was premised on a caste system. "Assuming two such classes exist and that their interests conflict, there is some reason for a two-house legislature, but in this country we have no such classes and the constitutions of our various States are built upon the idea that there is but one class."(fn28) He wanted the state to be run like a business, and no business would have two boards of directors - one simply to check on the work of the other. Two houses simply served to obscure the process from the public.(fn29) At the time, the Supreme Court had not yet ruled that the "one man, one vote" doctrine applied to state legislatures.(fn30)It was believed, however, that in most states the house and senate generally were of the same composition. "Each is composed of men elected in the same way having the same jurisdiction."(fn31)Second, Norris contended that the Conference Committee was secretive, antidemocratic, and the greatest obstacle to public understanding and input.(fn32) The Conference Committee is the body that is

797

necessary to ensure the two houses can reach agreement. As all votes in conference were secret, Norris maintained that Conference Committee members frequently used the Conference Committee to hide from their constituents. As a result, other legislators could avoid accountability as well. The Conference Committee wielded great power because anything voted out of conference could not be amended in either house. The representative could vote for a measure before conference, but vote against it after conference, explaining it simply was not the same bill. Or, he could hope the bill would die in conference and explain to his constituents that although he favored the measure, he simply was...