August 16, 2009Michigan should have a single-body, unicameral legislature.
Like 48 other states (Nebraska, alone, having a single legislative body), Michigan’s constitutions have copied the federal model of two houses.
Writers of the U.S Constitution configured the national Senate and House of Representatives very differently. They afforded states, regardless of population, equal representation (two members) in the U.S. Senate; they apportioned the House on population. When delegates wrote state constitutions, they largely followed a similar formula. Counties, being to states what states are to the federal government, won disproportionate standing in senates, while delegates configured lower and larger houses (houses of representatives, assemblies, or houses of delegates) on population.
The rationale for different legislative configurations worked okay until 1962. Then the U.S. Supreme Court issued Baker v. Carr. The majority found that state governments had to apportion all legislative districts on a “one-person, one-vote” basis. Over time, the Court has given states a bit of wiggle room, allowing for population differences of 10-15 percent among districts, but has never given to the states the right to factor geographical boundaries such as counties into map-making.
The Michigan Constitution’s apportionment of state Senate districts became null and void because it weighted counties as well as population in districting. Residents of less populous, rural areas enjoyed a disproportionate influence in the state Senate. For all the work that delegates to the 1962 Michigan Constitutional Convention exerted on apportionment (it’s the longest, most detailed section of the document), the different crafting of senatorial and representative districts never took effect because of Baker v. Carr.
Districts of both the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives are configured solely on population. State law, as well as U.S. Supreme Court verdicts, permits some population variance between the most and least populous districts to honor the boundaries of local governments, such as counties, cities, and townships. Basically, population — not local boundaries — determines each district’s arrangement.
Because both legislative bodies share the same formula, it makes far less sense than it did in 1962 to have two chambers. The raison d’être of two, differently configured chambers has been kaput for nearly a half century.
You can argue that two houses are better than one because they protect against hasty decisions. Three, four, or more legislative chambers would be even better if that is your goal. To my knowledge, Nebraska has not enacted policy any smarter or dumber than 49 two-house states.
To me, the gravest threat to democratic progress and governmental efficacy is paralysis, not haste or recklessness. The people still have a governor who can veto; courts that can render rulings on the constitutionality of statutes; and future elections and legislators who can reverse bad decisions.
No Michigan county, city, township, or K-12 school system elects two or more legislative bodies. Why not? If it makes sense for state government, wouldn’t it be rational for local units to do so? The trickle-down philosophy behind the federal system extends to nearly all states, yet not their local jurisdictions. Was that because it looked clunky, confusing, and duplicative to have multiple bodies setting policy? Very likely.
A unicameral state assembly has made sense since 1962. It would make smoother sailing for policy change with plenty of protection against nutty change through gubernatorial vetoes, court reviews, and future elections. It would lessen confusion among voters about who should be held accountable for legislative decisions, their senator or their representative or both. It would marginalize those frequent, petty squabbles between the members; the aura, turf, and legitimacy of each chamber; and those persistent “look at who’s angling for your seat” shenanigans.
You pick the size of the single chamber. Just please make it an odd number of members; I cannot fathom the logic behind 38 senators and 110 representatives where the political parties may evenly divide one of the chambers (like in 1967, 1971-74, 1997-98).
Pick, too, the term length: two or four years and whether you prefer staggered elections or to elect all members at the same time. What do we do with the north or south wing of the Capitol, whichever’s chamber is put out to pasture? On that, too, I am indifferent.
If you appealed to the public to winnow down two legislative chambers to one, you would certainly conjure up phony issues like cost savings in salaries and benefits — or telling people that your intent is ridding government of half or more the pestilence others send to Lansing. Those arguments are cockamamie, stooping to cynicism.
The compelling argument for the nearly 120 years of two legislative houses has not made any sense since 1962. Had the U.S. Supreme Court not undermined the same construction of state legislatures that the federal constitution set up for the federal government, it would be a moot issue. But it is not moot.
Two legislative chambers in Lansing slow down policy change. They cause unnecessary friction in serving the customers of democracy. Two legislative chambers are anachronistic.
Next month: Two members in each district.
Craig Ruff is, among many things, a senior policy fellow and former president of Lansing-based Public Sector Consultants.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Jeff Padden // Aug 18, 2009 at 4:39 am
Craig, as usual, has it exactly right. The logic of a two-chamber legislature is long gone. As to the number of members of the new body, how about 62, since that was the year of Baker vs. Carr. Or, how about 74, which is the average number of members of our current two houses. While we’re fixing this in the ConCon, we could also deal with the term limit mess in the current constitution. Here’s how: Delete the current term limit language and insert a new section that says: “TERM LIMITATION: The term of a member of the legislature may be limited at any time through recall, primary election, or general election by the voters in that legislator’s district.” Maybe we add one more sentence that says, “If voters in one legislative district do not like the legislator in another, they should mind their own business!”
2 Sharlan Douglas // Aug 18, 2009 at 4:52 am
Amen.
3 Greg Mann // Aug 18, 2009 at 6:52 am
What about the Ferency’s proposal? Unicameral, with multi member districts.
I remember Joe Forbes, House Majority Leader in the 70s and 80s saying that “The State Senate is the best argument for a unicameral legislature.”
4 Bob LaBrant // Aug 18, 2009 at 7:04 am
Craig,
Reynolds v. Sims (1964), not Baker v. Carr (1962) was the U.S. Supreme Court case that required both houses of a state legislature to have districts drawn on the basis of population. Baker v. Carr stands for the proposition that the failure to redistrict was a violation of the 14th Amendment and subject to judicial review. Prior to Baker v. Carr the Courts treated redistricting cases as a political question, best left to the political process not the courts to resolve.
Baker v. Carr had been decided while the 1961-62 Constitutional Convention was meeting. Reynolds v. Sims was not decided until a year after the voters narrowly approved the 1963 Constitution.
5 Dave Lambert // Aug 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm
A part-time, unicameral legislature is a great idea.
6 Greg Clark // Aug 19, 2009 at 6:57 am
The author forgets the importance of the differing terms of the two Houses. Our forefathers thought it important to provide one house with 2 year terms. Their short terms had them looking over their shoulders perpetually.
They were to represent “The mob”, the latest passions of society.
The other House was to have longer terms. This was to give those officeholders more independence from “The Mob” and allow them to be wise and independent. They were to take the long view and have the independence to do what is wise not just what is popular.
I think this is a good blend and worth keeping. If a bill can get through “The Mob” and “The Wise Men” it’s likely a decent bill. If we were to have only 1 House, which would you give up?
I believe it would be far more constructive to eliminate term limits.
Secondarily I would recommend Michigan stagger its existing Senate Sweat elections so that half are up for election every 2 years. This would tamp down the tendency of the Senate to act more favorably to “The Mob” as they collectively head towards the next election.
7 Craig Ruff // Aug 20, 2009 at 4:17 pm
1. Jeff: I’m a born-again believer in getting rid of term limits. You’re so right.
2. Bob: Why didn’t I call you–Michigan’s premier expert on districting–before I wrote? You are, as usual, more nearly right than I.
3. Greg Mann: Stay tuned. The Ferency plan, which I love, is the next focus of my commentaries.
4. Greg Clark: You make a strong case for staggered terms (2 years and 4 years) based on the chamber in which you serve … and that’s not possible with a single chamber. One solid reason for sticking with two chambers.
8 Charles Owens // Aug 24, 2009 at 9:22 am
For three years I managed the public policy program in six states for my employer. Nebraska was one of them.
I can see no merit in a unicameral legislature. Like term limits, it gives the illusion of “doing something” while doing nothing – or worse. A part-time legislature on the other hand, if properly constructed would be a substantive improvement over the status quo in Michigan.
Of the six states I managed, four were part time. Get rid of term limits and move to a part time legislature. By the way, under a part-time legislature the budget would most likely have been done back in April.
9 Dennis Muchmore // Aug 31, 2009 at 8:42 am
This is what the Dome is all about, stirring political wag’s interests and a discussion of democratic processes and differing points of view. For that alone, this type of civil discourse so often missing today, Tom’s mag should be congratulated.
Of course, there’s a case to be made that there is no reason for the development of bi-cameral legislatures. The federal model was extended to most of the states (save one) for the simple reason that it evolved more support for statehood creation and that “it’s the way the founding fathers thought it should be”.
The federal system is after all, an anachronism created to protect landowners from populist movements that often were interested in what the landowners held and how they, the populists, could get their hands on it.
Craig is probably right that there is no real definable reason for having two chambers, at least, it is not easily defendable.
Perhaps measuring it against parliamentary government, albeit a system from which the ultimate leadership is selected and usually a minor and much less significant second chamber is often present , is instructive. Most parliaments swing wildly in intervals and take their countries in and out of forms of government. Ours tends to swing less dramatically and requires more time for the pressures for change to be evident. Perhaps that is the legacy of the bi-cameral form. I suspect that is the happenstance with state bi-cameral legislatures as well.
There are, of course, variations on the uni-cameral theme, Wisconsin’s Joint Appropriations decision committee structure comes to mind, but basically the question is, is a change going to result in benefit? I doubt that it will. As long as legislators look at the position as a full time occupation and one in which the slary is most important, they’ll view it as a personal need rather than a political philosophic debating society. They will be focused on stretching the activities of the job so that it will appear as if they are justified in accepting the salary.
We would probably be better served if we just told elected officials and candidates that this job pays $X (and make it decent), half to be paid over the next four months and half upon completion of session, and the session runs from Jan. 20-May 15 (there is no magic to this date, but the Ides of March have some precedent after all). If the budget isn’t in place and finished by May 15th, the legislature does not receive its final half payment. That should solve Craig’s original concern that something needs to be done to accomplish the goal of putting a functioning government in place.
10 Kevin // Sep 10, 2009 at 12:32 pm
How about 83 reps? One for each county elected to 4-year terms running with the governor’s 4-year term. No need for a Lt. Governor’s deciding vote.
11 Keith // Sep 11, 2009 at 7:19 am
Don’t do it. It’s a terrible idea grounded in a noble purpose.
As a long-time former legislative staffer, I witnessed bad legislation being passed by one chamber all the time because it was a ploy to score political points. Luckily, when the legislation made it to the other chamber– even one controlled by the same party– the other chamber would recognize the bad public policy for what it was and put the breaks on it.
We need insulation from the whims of any particular legislative chamber. We shouldn’t hand them an even more powerful megaphone and stage to display their sanctimonious, chest-thumping political maneuvers.
If we truly want to make substantive changes to the process, cut the number of members by a third in each chamber and then extend term limits for a total of twelve years.
We’ve got so few players in the legislature who truly know how to get anything done. Have you noticed how many legislators spend six years in the House and then leave with zero substantive accomplishments while they eye a run at the state Senate?
Let’s pare the numbers of legislators back and focus on upgrading the quality of the ones we already have.
Leave a Comment:
Be sure to put in the security words and hit SUBMIT