that is said against unicameralism by
persons within this group is that a clear
superiority over bicameralism may not
have been factually proved. Persons
holding this reservation appear to be
in the minority within the group. Some
persons comment that analyses to date
are not conclusive because a modernized,
updated bicameral legislature has not
been tried. Inducing an existing legis-
lature to reform its procedures may be
more difficult, however, than effecting
a wholesale revision of the legislature
itself. The suggested bicameral im-
provements — such as joint committee
hearings and, possibly, joint commit-
tees — actually are partial moves towards
unicameralism, for the real work of
legislatures is done in committees and
not on the floor of the houses.42 In
view of this, unicameralists ask why re-
form should stop with halfway measures.
Most practicing politicians favor bi-
cameralism. Even here unicameralists
suggest that this may be due not so
42 Shepard, supra note 2, at 359.
116
|
much to the merits of the case as to a
fear of the personal political conse-
quences of the transition to unicameral-
ism. Nebraska legislators who have had
experience with both systems — and who
thus survived the transition — over-
whelmingly prefer unicameralism. A
survey in 1961 of 68 present and former
Nebraska legislators showed that only
four wanted a return to bicameralism.43
Earlier, one legislator who had served
four years in the Nebraska lower house
and two years in the Nebraska Senate
under bicameralism, and who had voted
against unicameralism, stated that uni-
cameralism was a decided improvement
over the previous bicameral system.44
This legislator, C. Petrus Peterson, had
also served as speaker of the unicameral
assembly, and was intimately acquainted
with the practical workings of both
systems.
43 Hanson, The One-House Legislature,
Baltimore Sun, Dec. 13, 1964, § D, at 3, col. 1.
44 Carter, supra note 23, at 113.
|
