A unicameral legislature for Arizona?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Aside from the fact that this idea would require a major rewriting of the Arizona Constitution – an open invitation to mischief – that must be approved by the voters, I am personally opposed to the idea of a unicameral legislature. Nebraska has hardly been a shining example of "nonpartisan" cooperation for the rest of the nation. It is the only unicameral legislature in the nation.

My own personal view aside, it is an idea that I will put forward here for your consideration and comment. The unicameral legislature is the latest reform proposal from former Rep. Ted Downing. Support for downsizing Legislature is building / Live Talk from March 17: Ted Downing:

Ted Downing, former state legislator from Tucson, talks about his efforts to create a unicameral legislature in Arizona.

1. Tell us a bit more about your efforts to create a unicameral legislature in Arizona, starting with what a unicameral legislature is…

Our proposal attempts to reduce recurring legislative gridlock and dysfunction. We enjoy healthy, not excessive partisanship. But spinning almost every issue along partisan likes, particularly on the budget, is counterproductive.

In Arizona, excessive partisanship is incubated in the primary elections of our mostly non-competitive districts. Fewer than 5000 party regulars elect their most partisan gladiators who go on to win non-competitive, general elections and then fight in the legislative coliseums. We found a way way to more healthy partisanship right under noses. We want to let the citizens decide if they wish to reshape the legislature to look like the rest of Arizona government. All Arizona Boards of Supervisors, towns and cities and school districts are governed by unicameral organization. Imagine the chaos that would happen if the bodies were bicameral. Except for the Supervisors, all are elected in non-partisan races. Arizona, like many states, mimicked the federal system with a Senate and House. After one-man-one-vote in 1964, state senates no longer represented land areas and became redundant. And we found an working, 73 year old example of a unicameral, non-partisan legislature in Nebraska.

We propose to downsize of our current 90 members, two chambers (House and Senate) to a single chamber legislature with 45 members from 45 districts. Members of this single chamber legislature will serve staggered, four-year terms and be elected in non-partisan primaries in which the top two candidates proceed to the district non-partisan general election. To further reduce partisan gridlock, we propose, that as in Nebraska, all leadership, including committee chairs shall be elected by secret ballot of all its members.

2. What would be two or three biggest advantages to Arizona having such a legislature?

Non-partisan primary elections and a single chamber gives citizens a more cost-effective accountable government. It is more likely to focus on issues rather than political maneuvers between the parties or between a House and a Senate, both of which will be gone. Proponents of the current bicameral organization claim that it avoids hasty decision. After waiting nine months for a budget, the public may not consider slow deliberation a virtue.

Second, open, non-partisan primaries enfranchises and empowers all voters, forcing legislators to be accountable to constituents, regardless of party. Republicans living in Democratic districts know their vote for legislature candidates under the current system doesn't count. And visa versa. Independents are marginalized by partisan primaries. Overall, our proposal lowers the decibels, moving the legislature towards the center where it can focus on neglected priorities.

And third, the proposed Constitutional amendment directly downsizes and cuts the costs. It eliminates half the legislators and need for a new state House or Senate freeing up valuable spaces for public functions. The amount saved is roughly what is necessary to reopen our closed Interstate rest stops or the State Parks. Indirect savings are significant, beginning with a more open, comprehensible legislative process.

3. If it's such a good idea, why does only one state – Nebraska – have a unicameral legislature?

Change has been difficult due to entrenched interests, party authoritarianism, and the unwillingness of politicians to reduce the number horses them may ride on the political Merry-go-Round. After one-man-one-vote, the state houses and senates no longer represented different constituencies, closing a key reason for bicameralism.

Nebraska offers proof the proposed downsized legislative reorganization will work. Their voters boarded up their House and Senate in 1934, when the dust bowl was destroying their economy, a deep national economic downturn, and their legislators were unresponsive. Arizona is in a similar situation. Since then, this quiet Midwest experiment has worked well and today they do not face the crisis and have a balanced budget with a small rainy day fund.

4. You've compared your proposal to an unemployment act for legislators. Why?

It's good for legislators to practice what they preach and be sensitive to the plight of their constituents. With Arizonans suffering around 10 % unemployment, our proposal gives voters a chance to create 50% unemployment among legislators, cutting 90 legislators to 45 and two chambers to one. With 45 districts, the districts are smaller than the current 30, so constituents are better represented.

5. Why are you also pushing for legislators to be nonpartisan under your proposal?

Most of the day to day governance issues do not divide comfortably along party lines. For example, we are concern with how to find a new economic base for the state and getting more for our limited tax dollars. In a non-partisan unicameral legislature, you have to be persuasive, not simply partisan. You cannot assume you have another member's vote just because you wear the same jersey.

6. What has been the reaction so far in the Arizona Legislature to your idea? I understand you will be asking candidates for the Legislature to take a stand on whether they support a unicameral legislature?

Support is mixed, but building. An attempt to place this on the 2010 ballot (HCR2051) failed on a tie vote. We will be asking all candidates to make a public commitment to allow Arizonans to vote on this proposal. Those who do not make the commitment run the risk being accused by their opponent of political hypocrisy, asking for an exemption from the sacrifices they are asking their constituents and other branches of government to make. We are not trying to lead a movement, but letting each candidate state their position. Voters understand the difference between a yes, a no, and a waffle.

7. Who else is working with you to advance the idea of a unicameral legislature?

Leadership is being taken by Senate candidates – former Rep. Ted Downing (D) and Rep. Bill Konopnicki (R). Representative Ben Miranda (D) showed great courage to introduce HCR 2051), as did his co-sponsors Cecil Ash, Dave Bradley (D), Jack Brown (D), Bill Konopnicki, and Senator Richard Miranda (D). The bill died in a tie vote, which is not bad. There are others and we have agreed to respect the right of others to self-identify as either in favor or opposed during the 2010 campaign. On the street, we are encountering strong support – people are ready for a change.

8. Does a non-partisan election mean a candidate cannot exercise their free speech and run as a Republican, Democrat, other part or no-party?

No. Candidates are free to run anyway they wish in the primary and general elections. The key differences are 1) their party affiliation will not be on the ballot and 2) all voters in their legislative district, regardless of party membership, may vote for anyone on the non-partisan slated.