Posted by In previous blogs I have mentioned the possibility of the flood gates opening in the Senate and bills could start passing. Well I am not sure if it was actually the pressure of being so unproductive or if everyone just got plain tired of fighting but the log jam of bills has now been broken. Like a dam holding back a lot of water, now that the wall is down a flood of legislative activity is likely to occur tomorrow and next Thursday, the final two days of the session.
I am always a bit of early worker during the session so I like to have my bills passed out of the House early where they usually sit for a while until something happens or not happens. The bad thing about that is you work like the devil to get your bills out of the House early only to have them sometimes sit in the Senate the rest of the session without any action being taken on them. That is very frustrating beyond comprehension. The good news with passing your bills that way is that if the Senate does get past whatever battle is going on then your bills are in a great position for passage if you have all the kinks worked out with it.
Of course with the dam broken and bills being passed left and right another interesting twist comes into play– sometimes you can actually pass TOO MUCH. Often as we get toward the end of the session in the House bills get passed that may not be that good but not a whole lot of effort is put into killing them because “of course it won’t make it through the Senate.” Well now anything is possible and over the next couple of days I imagine lobbyists in Montgomery will be working over time to pass and kill various measures in the Senate.
Without a doubt over the next couple of days there will be some big winners as a result of this session and some big losers. Almost every issue is on the table and has a chance.
Representative Ward: “The bad thing about that is you work like the devil to get your bills out of
the House early only to have them sometimes sit in the Senate the rest of the session without
any action being taken on them. That is very frustrating beyond comprehension.”
Sir, that seems to me to be a good argument for restructuring our state legislature in two major
ways: (1) change to a non-partisan unicameral system, and (2) change it to a fulltime legislature.
It will take some time to explain my position, so please bear with me.
(1) REGARDING A UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE:
U.S. Senator George Norris of Nebraska said the two-house system was outdated, inefficient
and unnecessary.
The bicameral system was modeled after the British Parliament, Norris said, which is made up
of the House of Commons, with representatives elected by the people, and the House of Lords,
with its aristocratic members appointed by the king.
“…The constitutions of our various states are built upon the idea that there is but one class. If this
be true, there is no sense or reason in having the same thing done twice, especially if it is to be
done by two bodies of men elected in the same way and having the same jurisdiction.”
The one-house system differs little from most city, county and school district governing bodies.
All Canadian provinces operate with single-house systems.
Norris wore out two sets of tires while he drove throughout the state campaigning for the
measure, which the citizens of Nebraska adopted.
Implementation of the unicameral legislature in 1937 cut government costs for obvious reasons.
Legislative membership went from 133 in the bicameral to 43 in the new single house – nearly a
70 percent reduction.
Also, the one-house system was more efficient than its predecessor. The number of committees
was pared down from 61 to 18, and 581 bills were introduced in 1937 as opposed to twice that
many 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.
Nonpartisanship
Another unique aspect of Nebraska’s legislature is its nonpartisanship. Before becoming a
unicameral, the Nebraska Legislature was a partisan one. The change to nonpartisanship was
included in the successful 1934 unicameral amendment.
Being a nonpartisan legislature means that a candidate’s political party is not listed on the
election ballot. The two candidates who obtain the most votes in the primary election face each
other in the general election. In other states, each party selects a winner in the primary, and the
winners of each party run against each other in the general election.
Unlike other states, Nebraska’s legislative leadership is not based on party affiliation.
Norris, who advocated nonpartisanship said that such a body would allow senators to
concentrate on local interests without being influenced by national party lines. National party
lines, he argued, often have little to do with local government. A voter who votes according to
party lines might vote for a state candidate who disagrees with him or her on matters over which
the senator will have jurisdiction.
Norris worked to eliminate partisanship in the legislature because he believed that elected
officials would stand on their own. Nonpartisanship would allow lawmakers to base their actions
on their own convictions and the needs of their districts, rather than according to party dictates.
Why should Alabama be over 70 years behind Nebraska in changing to a better state
legislature?
(2) REGARDING A FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE:
My reasons for favoring a full-time legislature include:
a. I know of no better way to eliminate the “double-dipper” problem from out state legislature,
and eliminating that would, I believe, benefit Alabamians.
b. Legislation could be considered in a more thoughtful and deliberate manner than it is now
with the time restraints of a 30-day regular session.
As an illustration of why that (b) is desirable, here are some extracts from “Senate leadership
gives Republicans campaign fodder”
(http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/editorials/070531a.shtml):
“It is safe to say that less than half of the members in the House and Senate know much about
the budgets that passed the Legislature on Tuesday. Sure, they know that the new General Fund
budget that they sent to Gov. Bob Riley is $1.8 billion. But they were not privy to the
details…..That’s shameful. Senate Minority Leader Jabo Waggoner, R-Vestavia, gave a valid
perspective of the session…..Sen. Waggoner said he had about 90 minutes to review the final
version of the General Fund budget.”
While the last minute rush to deal with legislation in this session was largely caused by the
slowdown caused by the dispute in the senate, every session there seems to be a last minute
rush and at times the clock has been stopped on the last day just to finish necessary business.
As a result, history teaches us that faulty legislation has been passed at the last minute that has
to be corrected only after waiting months for the start of the next regular session.
Useful information regarding state how much time legislators in various states spend doing the
people’s business, and other things, can be found @
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2004/backgrounder_fullandpart.htm.