be the weakest in state government by
dividing among themselves the direct repre-
sentatives of the people.
If we turn to the direct arguments made
for bicameralism by the Committee Report,
the first is that from a statistical point of
view bicameralism really works in Mary-
land, which is to say that one house passes
bills and the other house passes them, too,
and sometimes one house declines to pass
a bill which has been passed by the other
house, which is to state the obvious, or
nothing.
This in fact gives us no qualitative judg-
ment as to whether or not good bills pass
or bad bills pass. Statistically it would
probably also indicate, if one could decide
what is a good bill and what is a bad bill,
that on the average about as many good
bills are killed as bad bills.
What the Committee neglects to mention
is that one house does not provide careful
consideration of legislation passed by the
other house simply because the second
house does not have an adequate oppor-
tunity for careful consideration. I call your
attention to page 6 of the Minority Report,
LB-IA, in which we have reproduced a
table from the Eagleton study of the legis-
lature, indicating that 82 percent of all
legislation was enacted in the last two
weeks in 1966, and 79 percent in 1967.
Also, we indicate on page 7 of the Re-
port that a very large percentage of the
bills moving from one house to the other
does not move until the last ten days of
the session, including Sundays.
In things that matter greatly, such as
the consideration and enactment of the
budget, the General Assembly has found it
necessary to develop informal relationships
between the two houses so that the budget
bill can be carried to completion in sub-
stantially the same form in both houses,
thereby avoiding a conference.
In the development of major new areas
of legislation, such as tax reform, the Gen-
eral Assembly resorts, as seems most wise
and widely heralded, to the use of the Legis-
lative Council, which consists of a joint
committee of the two houses acting to-
gether. Thus it would seem that in those
things that matter most the General As-
sembly has already recognized the validity
of the unicameral principle, and attempts
to combine the two houses insofar as it is
possible within the present system.
We may conclude, then, from the facts
that are available, and from the behavior |
of the legislature as contrasted with the
theory and slogans of bicameralism that
hasty and ill-considered legislation is, as I
suggested earlier, a self-fulfilling prophecy
in a bicameral body.
The second argument made by the Com-
mittee is that bicameralism offers greater
opportunity for different citizen interests
to be represented in the legislature.
We of the minority believe that this is
probably the strongest argument made by
the majority for the retention of a bicam-
eral system. We believe, however, that this
purported advantage is offset in a uni-
cameral body by its increased visibility,
and thereby by the ability of the individual
citizen, the constituent, to understand the
legislative process, and to carefully view
and consider the behavior of his representa-
tive.
We believe that the interest of citizens
is better protected if the legislative power
is undivided and no opportunities are pro-
vided to shift responsibility for actions
from one house to the other.
The third argument advanced by the
Committee is that a bicameral legislature
with houses of unicameral size will insure
that issues are viewed from varying per-
spectives. Again, this is a statement of the
obvious, for if there are two people con-
sidering the matter, there will be varying
perspectives brought to view on the ques-
tion, or if the experience of the Constitu-
tional Convention may apply, if one person
is considering the matter there may be oc-
casionally varying perspectives brought to
view on the issue.
The practices in both houses of our Gen-
eral Assembly move in the direction of
fewer committees, and toward a tendency
of a parallel committee structure in each
house of the General Assembly, so it would
appear that the argument of varying per-
spectives may not be as strong as supposed.
The fourth argument advanced by the
Committee is that bicameralism permits
legislators to play differing roles and each
house to operate under different rules of
procedure. It would perhaps be more accu-
rate to say that bicameralism diffuses re-
sponsibility rather than increases responsi-
bility, and the second look may often be
only a passing glance.
The fifth reason advanced by the Com-
mittee is that bicameralism is more respon-
sive to the public will and offers more time
for citizens to learn what is happening in
the legislature. This statement is based |
