A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING OR RESTRUCTURING THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE

AN IDEA FOR THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION

PREPARED BY DON SEIBOLD

WETUMPKA, ALABAMA

Visit my clinic at http://www.doctoriq.com

March 8, 2005


WHY WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE, AND ONE IDEA OF WHAT THE NEW STRUCTURE SHOULD BE.


WHY TO CHANGE IT, AND JUSTIFICATATION FOR DOING SO


EXTRACTED FROM THE PREAMBLE TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

[The emphasis given to certain portions was done by me]


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

******************************************************

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT QUALIFIES AS A SEGMENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE TO CHANGE.

******************************************************

ONE IDEA OF WHAT FORM THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD TAKE, IF INDEED IT IS POSSIBLE TO RESTRUCTURE IT

A BIT OF HISTORY TO CONTEMPLATE

George who? Norris? Who is that?

A dam, a lake, and a city – all in Tennessee – are named after George Norris, although he was a United States Senator from Oklahoma.

One reason Alabamians should also find a way to honor him is that as one of the principal advocates in congress for the Tennessee Valley Authority, in a sense, he was instrumental in figuratively, and literally, turning on the lights for much of rural Alabama along with other nearby states.


At the same time, he didn’t neglect the Nebraskans he represented. Almost solely due to his efforts at the time, the voters of Nebraska entirely restructured their state legislature, just as Alabamians need to do now, over 70 years later.


At this point in time, Alabama needs a George Norris to turn on the lights in our political consciousness, rather than in our homes. Alabama needs a Senator Norris now.


NEBRASKANS CHOSE A UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE


[Portions of this article, NEBRASKANS CHOSE A UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE were extracted from the following websites, but the emphasis given to certain passages was rendered by me. Further information on unicameralism is available in related websites.]

http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/uni/history.htm#hist

http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/uni/history.htm

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Nebraska's unicameral legislature is unique among all state legislatures in the nation because it has a single house. It wasn't always a unicameral, however. The state had a senate and a house of representatives for 68 years before Nebraskans voted to get rid of half of over half of their state legislators in 1934.


Integral to the success of the unicameral amendment was the involvement of a longtime U.S. Senator, who led a zealous petition campaign on Nebraska’s behalf.


Sen. George Norris, a 'New Deal Republican' who settled in McCook, wore out two sets of tires while he drove throughout the state campaigning for the measure. He 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.

Norris said “...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.

Norris' influence, the Depression, and the other ballot issues summoned enough supporters for an overwhelming decision to make Nebraska's the only one-house legislature in the nation. The vote was 286,086 to 193,152 in favor of a unicameral system."

A common question regarding unicameralism was how to preserve checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. Norris argued there would be checks and balances without a second house. The Supreme Court and the governor would rule on or veto measures deemed improper, he said.

“More importantly, the people would serve as a check upon the possible abuse of power by their elected officials with the right to vote and petition”, Norris said. The Nebraska Unicameral would have easy-to-follow procedures and extend greater privileges to the press to allow for greater public awareness.

“Every act of the legislature and every act of each individual must be transacted in the spotlight of publicity”, Norris said.

“In a one-house legislature”, Norris said, “no actions could be concealed as was commonly done in the conference committee of bicameral legislatures”. Conference committees resolve differences when bills passed in both houses vary in content. In Nebraska, the appointed six-member committee met in secret and members’ votes were not public record. Norris said, “these committees had too much power and could be influenced easily by lobbyists”.

Once a bill came out of the conference committee, it could not be changed, only approved or rejected. If rejected, another committee had to be formed to work out the disagreements or the measure failed. Today in Nebraska, lawmakers propose amendments and debate them outside of committee on the chamber floor.

Some say a two-house system with its conference committee prevents hasty legislation. But the unicameral system has safeguards against this possibility. Most bills must get a public hearing; five days must elapse between a bill’s introduction and its passage; and bills can contain only one subject.

Nebraska's legislature is also uniquely nonpartisan and has been so since the ratification of the 1934 unicameral amendment.

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.

In the 1960s the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that both houses of a legislature must be apportioned according to population, instead of one house according to population and the other house according to geographical lines.

The ruling raised doubts about the necessity of having two houses based on population, stirring many states to evaluate their own systems. Many states looked to Nebraska as a model of an effective one-house legislature. Those states included California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas. Nebraska officials visited many states to spread the word about unicameralism. Journalists and officials from other states also visited Nebraska.

The Unicameral’s first clerk, Hugo Srb, predicted that lawmakers in other states would not want to legislate their own jobs out of existence. Despite the interest unicameralism has received over the years, Nebraska remains the only state with a unicameral legislature.

Advocates of the unicameral legislature say:

There is no reason for people to vote for representatives to two separate houses to serve the same purpose. "One man - one vote" has negated the original intent of having each house elected on a different basis.
The unicameral form simplifies bill passage. The process is more direct. Bills are more readily available for scrutiny by legislators and the public.
The Conference Committee, an inherent evil necessary for the operation of a bicameral system, is eliminated.
Lobbyists are less influential in the unicameral legislature because the lawmaking process is more public.
In a unicameral system, it is easier to achieve cooperation between executive and legislative branches.
A unicameral system is more economical.
A unicameral system offers greater responsibility to legislators.
Legislators are more accountable to the public and their constituency because their position is a matter of public record. They are not able to urge opposite positions within the other house.
SOME HISTORY


THE UNICAMERALISM DEBATE IN NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The following selection is excerpted from "Nebraska Government and Politics," Robert D. Miewald, Ed., pg. 57-58 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984)

: "Under our federal system, each state is free to determine the structure and nature of its own government, subject only to the vague and unimportant provision for a 'republican form of government' in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Even with this latitude, there are more similarities than dissimilarities among the fifty state governments, this high degree of uniformity being fastened on them by history and tradition. In addition, major alterations in, or departures from, these accepted governmental institutions are rare. Nebraska, however, did make such a major change when it adopted a nonpartisan, unicameral legislature. The question is often raised as to how and why this occurred. It was not sudden.

Actually, there have been momentary spurts of interest in unicameralism in a number of states since just before World War I. Governors in some states have recommended it; in others, various "good government" groups and constitutional conventions have given it serious consideration; it has even been voted on by the people in a few states. The most recent stirring of interest grew out of the "one man, one vote" requirements in the apportionment of both houses of state legislatures. The supreme court decision effectively undermined the "federal analogy" supporting the argument for a second house in state government. All of this interest flared only briefly and soon disappeared -- except in Nebraska.

Alabama


In order for Alabama voters to restructure their legislature they first need acquire the tool that Oklahoma voters used to restructure theirs --- an Initiative and Referendum process.


Alabama does not have either the initiative or referendum, although voters must approve constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature. The movement for direct democracy was not successful in Alabama during the Progressive era. The only victory recorded by Equity, a publication of the initiative and referendum movement, was a state law giving voters the right of referendum on ordinances in major municipalities. It wasn’t until the late 1990s that a state elected official advocated the adoption of the initiative process in the state. When Fob James was elected Governor, he strongly advocated the adoption of the initiative process, but nothing came of it.


Although the state does not permit citizen-initiated ballot propositions, the legislature often places constitutional amendments on the ballot. A total of 1,088 constitutional amendment propositions came before the voters since the constitution was adopted in 1901, through 2006, by far the most of any state.

- finis -