|
1
|
ONE HOUSE OR TWO
|
|
2
|
(Comments by Dr. C. I. Winslow - February 16, 1966)
|
|
3
|
|
|
4
|
Now that the Supreme Court has decided that it is
|
|
5
|
people not acres which are to be used as a basis for repre-
|
|
6
|
sentation in both houses of state legislatures, the debate
|
|
7
|
over bicameralism changes materially. Since the two
|
|
8
|
houses can no longer be constructed to reflect differing
|
|
9
|
interests or classes, the only strong argument for
|
|
10
|
bicameralism which remains is that one house serves as a
|
|
11
|
check upon the other. Undoubtedly, this is true — to a
|
|
12
|
degree. The question is whether it is a necessary, or even
|
|
13
|
a desirable check, under current conditions.
|
|
14
|
What checks now exist to prevent legislatures from
|
|
15
|
acting hastily and so enacting ill-considered legislation?
|
|
16
|
To begin with, we have in Maryland a Legislative Council,
|
|
17
|
whose business it is to give a preliminary examination to
|
|
18
|
proposed legislation, especially in the more important
|
|
19
|
areas of policy-making. In the house of origin, three
|
|
20
|
further checks are provided: consideration by a standing
|
|
21
|
committee, action by the house on the committee report,
|
