(00:00:24) Good afternoon. Welcome back to midday here on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary eichten today. We're broadcasting live from the Minnesota Public Radio Booth here at the Minnesota State Fair again an invitation. If you come out to the fair really any time, make sure you stop by our booth. We have (00:00:40) a refrigerator magnet for you. You (00:00:42) can enter a drawing for a ski trip and we just like to have you stop by and visit we are at the corner of Judson and Nelson at the fair which is right across from the new wall of speed virtual stock car racing exhibit that is said to be quite a lot of fun. Anyway were easy to And and and I hope you can come by now. This our midday we're going to focus on (00:01:04) one of the (00:01:05) livelier issues in the state right now. No, we're not talking about taxes or education or even the stadium or light rail. We're talking about a unicameral legislature Governor. Jesse Ventura says moving to a one-house legislature is his top priority and a fairly Lively debate is already underway on whether one house is better than to next session legislators will be asked to put the issue before the voters under the proposal a constitutional amendment would appear on the November 2000 general election ballot asking Minnesota voters if they want Minnesota to join Nebraska as the only states in the nation to move to a one-house legislature. The issue is generating a good deal of debate and joining us here on the stage this hour or two folks in either side of that debate state. Senator Allen Spear and former Republican party chair, Chris George Lucas Senators fear is a dfl or he served in the state senate since To he's currently the president of the Senate he supports the idea of eliminating one of the two houses in the legislature Chris. Yerga kiss was GOP State party chair from 1993 to 97. He is currently an executive with the Saint Paul public affairs firm Golf and Howard. He is a member of the group ouch opponents of a unicameral house. Now those of you here in the audience, if you've got some questions or comments on this idea of just having one A one-house legislature come on up to our microphone and and weigh-in will have our panelists respond. Those of you listening on the radio. Give us a call here six five. One two, two seven six thousand 6512276 thousand outside the Twin Cities 1-800 to for to to 828 now before we get into the details of this proposal I have to ask each of you. This comes as something of a surprise to me. Now, you would think of all the things that People could get fired up about a good government process type issue doesn't seem like the thing that would boil people's blood but this apparently is boiling people's blood. Why centers fear? (00:03:17) I think it's boiling more blood at the Capitol than it is out there among the people as a whole you have to understand when you're talking about politicians reducing the size of the legislature from 201 the 135 eliminating our third of the jobs eliminating a lot of the staff is obviously going to get some people excited. So I think that and I and it's not just that I mean, there are people on the other side of this issue who do genuinely believe that it would be a mistake to go to one house that the two houses check each other that there's a checks and balances operating here. So there are people who feel strongly about it, but Not yet persuaded that if you go to the coffee shop out there on Main Street that this is what everybody's talking about (00:04:07) Chris. What are you hearing Gary? I would agree with what Senator spear said, but I do think that this will be an interesting debate over the next at least seven or eight months. If not through the November a 2000 election because this is an issue unlike many other issues including some pass constitutional amendments where I think we'll have a very honest debate without the sort of partisan Rancor that we often associate with pretty weighty issues. I do give Governor Ventura great credit for having raised an issue, which I think will help serve a little bit of an educational purpose and remind all of us as minnesotans and Americans about the dignity and importance of participatory democracy Now Senator spear. This is this issue is often described. As the eliminate way that will eliminate the state senate get rid of the state senate. So you just have the house you've served in the senate for a million years. Are you mad at the institution? Is that all you want to get (00:05:13) another? What's well, first the first of all that's not the way I would characterize it. It's not getting rid of the Senate and just leaving the house. It would be creating a new legislative body a unicameral legislative body that would develop its own Traditions. That would be neither the Senate nor the house. So I don't look upon this as either eliminating the senate or eliminating the house. I'm not mad at the Senate and I have great respect for the Senate as an institution. They've elected me. My colleagues have elected me president now for the last seven years and I have great respect for my colleagues and for the institution of the Senate one of the things I hope we're going to avoid in the debate is legislature bashing because I don't think that's This ought to be about it ought not be I'm for a unicameral because we can get rid of a third of those guys up there when you go in. Anyway, that's not my position. I have a lot of respect for the institution. I think we can make it work better (00:06:12) in a nutshell Chris George Lucas. Why are you opposed to this? I mean on the face of it. It does seem like a pretty good idea. You'd save some money you could you could streamline things that seems to be the wave of the future. You're a good Republican Republicans always like smaller government was a matter of fact Gary until maybe about six or eight months ago. I was standing with Senators beer and support of a unicameral legislature for many years. In fact have been a supporter of it as I am about other reform measures like term limits in initiative and referendum, but I must say that after having given the idea more careful study and having looked at the arguments that those of us at the time were advancing and support a unicameral legislature. I'm a That the experience in Nebraska suggest that the kinds of arguments that are used in support of bringing a single house legislature here really don't measure up. And in fact, I think that the unicameral ideal as advanced by Governor Ventura really is not simply making one change, but in fact, it's making three changes Governor Ventura and in fact, all unicameral supporters are talking about reducing A two-house legislature to a single house, but they're also talking about reducing the size of the legislature itself, which really is a second issue and at least some of the unicameral lists Governor Ventura included are talking about making the legislature and nonpartisan institution as we had up until the early (00:07:43) 1970s all three of those things done that let me make it clear that I do not support a nonpartisan (00:07:51) legislature and now and I understand that there are many like you in the unicameral Camp who do not but certainly Governor Ventura is the one who has helped advance. I think the Public debate in recent months on this issue and I think it for minnesotans. We have to disentangle from the unicameral argument those three different very specific reform efforts and talk about whether in fact we have a problem first of all with the legislature. If so, whether any or all of those three changes will in fact improve democracy as we have in the state. All right, let's get some questions in on the are here again those of you here in our audience. If you've got a question or comment on the idea of going to a one-house legislature unicameral idea. Come on up to our Mike. If you're listening on the radio, give us a call six five one two, two seven six thousand or one eight hundred two, four two two eight two eight Our Guest this our state senator Allen sphere and former Republican party chair Chris George Lucas. Go ahead sir. (00:08:51) I'm Frank from Minneapolis about a block North of senators peer in fact, and I've always (00:08:57) wondered why do state (00:08:59) Yours have two houses. It seems to be strictly in Imitation of the National Congress and the National Congress has two houses because of that was a compromise in the Constitutional Convention (00:09:12) between representation by States and representation by population and there is no need for such a compromise and a state (00:09:21) legislature and it seems to me that Nebraska has the only rational legislature. Okay. Let me I agree completely with what Frank just said and that is one of the reasons I support unicameral because I think it is a kind of automatic imitation of the US Congress without any real reason for doing it and let me just add one thing that on the state level unicameral is excuse me bicameralism might have made some sense down to the 1960s because during the Before the one-person one-vote decisions of the 1960s some states had one of the houses proportion geographically and the same way that the United States Senate is and the other house proportioned by population the way the United States House of Representatives is since the one-person one-vote decisions of the 1960's that's no longer permissible. So we have in Minnesota and all of the other body Campbell states have legislators with two houses Each of which are proportioned in precisely the same way. So there's no really substantial difference between what the house represents and what the Senate represents yet bills have to go through both houses. And I think the process is essentially duplicative (00:10:46) historic assume. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense anymore. Maybe at one point it did but now since everybody's representing the same people. Well, Gary what Frank stated is a common Argument used by proponents of a unicameral legislature, but I must say that it is a misreading of the history of the Constitutional Convention and the early State legislatures created After the Revolutionary War the founding fathers specifically endorsed in the Constitutional Convention to put together the US Constitution the idea of bicameralism as a check against the tyranny of a and over-aggressive legislation over-aggressive Congress, and only made the decision after that to accommodate the interests of small and and large states by having different method of election and representation in the in the Senate and the US House similarly the colonies as they became States in in the aftermath of the Revolution also by and large with very few exceptions indoor stay a to chamber legislature again for the precise reason that with so much decision-making vested in state legislatures. Seen that there had to be some necessary checks and to safeguard the rights of the minority and not simply let majority rule governed the day and it's for that reason that the founders both of the US Constitution. In fact, the writers of the Minnesota Constitution embraced a to chamber of State Legislature. I don't think that it was merely copying the US the US Constitution that are that led to are having a state Senate and State House of Representatives here in Minnesota and I would argue that even even in the after the 1962 Court decision that the senator Spirit mentioned the Baker versus Carr decision that here in Minnesota. There isn't any new development as a result of that Court decision, that would negate the the need for two Chambers Minnesota. In fact from from our Pioneer Days had equal methods of election between the House and Senate. Our Founders here of our state constitution realize that there was a necessary. There was a need to have a check and balance one body against the other to ensure the government doesn't move too quickly into too (00:13:14) hastily. Well just to reply to that. First of all, I don't think there was much debate at the state constitutional convention over one or two house legislator. Sure. I think that by that time by 1857 58 when Minnesota was becoming a state that the notion of bicameralism was pretty generally accepted and just wasn't debated very much as far as the checks. I don't know what kind of a check you have when two houses both of which represent exactly the same thing are looking over each other shoulders. It isn't like one is more attuned to the rights of the minority than the other they really represent the same thing. We already have checks and balances on our system. The governor can veto the And then with two thirds override a veto I mean the idea that the historical concept of checks and balances was not linked to bicameralism. It was linked to the different branches of government. It was linked to the executive and the Judiciary having oversight through the veto process and through judicial review of what the legislature does and we would still have that we would still have a gubernatorial veto. We would still have judicial review there would still be all of those checks and balances that are there to protect a legislative tyranny from developing. (00:14:35) Okay, ma'am your question. (00:14:36) Yes, I'm Parsons from Columbia Heights. I just make it want to make a comment about the acronym of the group which is opposed to the unilateral the couch sounds a lot like a pain response to loss of jobs. How might well it brings up a good question (00:14:56) though. I mean now what you're doing here is asking legislators to vote in some cases both themselves out of a job. And how much of that is going to play a part in this debate when you strip away all the high-minded arguments about constitutional intent and Minnesota State history when the rubber meets the road here how much of this is going to come down to I like my job in the legislature and I don't want to vote myself out of office Gary. I think they'll be some proponents of the unicameral legislature who will resort to those those kinds of claims. But let me say as someone who has been an outspoken advocate for term limits over many many years. I'm certainly one of the last people who want to defend the interests of career politicians, but I do think that it's important for us to make sure that we have a structure we're talking fairly theoretical arguments here. And I know that that loses the public often times we're talking about. What is the system that's going to ensure that the best kinds of decisions are made by by the legislature the one body that that Laws that apply to all minnesotans experience suggests that Nebraska has not the one state that has a unicameral legislature and has had one since the 1930s doesn't have significantly better government. The Minnesota many people would argue that we have a far far more responsive government that they have in that state. Certainly the cost of government in Nebraska is not significantly less than that here in Minnesota despite. Our state's reputation a well-deserved one for being a high tax High service data Nebraska's reputation for being a state that Embraces limited government. The fact is if we look at each of the individual claims made by unicameral as they fall on they they just collapse in view of the history that Nebraska has had since the 1930s. Well, you know under spare how much will self-interest play a legislative self-interest play in the (00:17:00) well, it will play some role. I don't know that it will play the the most significant role. I sure there will be some legislators who don't want to see as the size reduction but I don't I think there will be an honest debate on this and I wanted to respond a little bit to what Chris said about Nebraska. I don't talk a lot about Nebraska. I don't think that the focus of this debate should be whether Nebraska has better government or Worse government the Minnesota unicameral ism is only one aspect of the Nebraska system just like bicameral system, but I camel ism is only one aspect of our system, Nebraska Minnesota. All the states have their own Traditions. They have their own political culture. They are their own way of doing things if we had a unicameral in Minnesota. It would be a Minnesota unicameral. It wouldn't be identical to it wouldn't work exactly the way Nebraska does because we don't operate the same way to Braska doesn't whole lot of ways. 49 states with bicameral legislatures, but they aren't all alike. They're all very different and they're very different because states have different political cultures. So I don't think we can assume that what is the experience has been in the Braska is necessarily going to be the Minnesota (00:18:21) experience. Let's get some listeners involved here. If you're just joining us, we're broadcasting live today from the Minnesota State Fair and this hour here on our midday program. We're talking about the proposal to move Minnesota from its current to house legislature Senate and House of Representatives to A one-house legislature. Next session, Minnesota legislators will be discussing a proposal which would essentially put that question to the voters. It would put that question on the November 2008 ballot so that those of you who vote but have an opportunity to make the decision our guests this our Chris Jericho's former State Republican party chair. He does not support. The unicameral proposal state senator Allen spear is with us and he does and if you have a question for these gentlemen, give us a call six, five one two, two seven six thousand outside the Twin Cities one eight hundred two, four two two eight two eight begin those of you (00:19:19) listening out here. Don't be shy come on up (00:19:20) to the mic with your questions and comments. Let's go off to the Mall of America Warren your (00:19:25) question. Well, it's more of a comment. I'm appalled at both sides that they do not take into account the history and the idealism of democracy, especially Chris with his ethnic background there the Athenians for the Athenians that democracy was the power of the people all voters were required to come and take part in their democracy. That's not possible here in America and the 20th century. And so we need to have Representatives by going to a unicameral legislature. You're closing the door on me being a To find a legislator that I can speak to at present. I can speak to a senator and I can speak to a state senator and state representative. You're going to close that door so I can only go to one person and I'd like to bring a nobody's ever talked about Illinois. I'm from the south side of Chicago Republican in the 60s and 70s. Anyway, you were able you had two Representatives who represented the majority but you had to have a third representative that was representing representing the minority now Sutton south side of Chicago. You're not going to find too many Republicans, but you had at least somebody who could go to when you go to DuPage County in Illinois. You had a Democrat which is very Republican. You had a Democrat representative as soon as they decided to save money and lowered government. They got rid of that and now the minority no longer had anyone to go to what you guys are doing is you're going to close off the door and stop. Our access to democracy. (00:21:06) Okay. Well, you know, Illinois did as they call it playing out do away with that system of requiring that one person and every District be a member of the minority party, but you know, there's one there's one assumption behind that those comments that I don't agree with and that is that you have no access to your legislature if your legislators a different party from you and I just that has not in my experience been the case when somebody writes to me in somebody calls me or somebody emails me about a problem. I usually don't even know whether that person is a Republican or a Democrat so I might sometimes I might isn't it. Oh that one personally, but I don't go ask and and do some kind of Investigation to find out what party that person belongs. (00:21:56) But if you want somebody if you want some your representative to support something or you're mad and you want them to oppose it this way. Got at least two people you can call up and say look I voted for you are voted against you. But at any rate, you've got two people to call and and pound on their door under this other system. You just have the one person correct. (00:22:16) That's true. That's true. And you would have only one person representing you rather than to now that might have a disadvantage in some cases. It might also have an advantage. You know, you're more likely to know who that one person is other there are an awful lot of people now who don't even understand that there's a senator and a representative and don't know who the two people are with one. It might be more easy to focus. I find for example in the City of Minneapolis where the city council is, of course unicameral. Most everybody knows who the city council member is a lot more know who the city council member is the know who their Senator and representative (00:22:54) is do they know who their County Commissioner is? Oh and again, there's only one of (00:22:57) those so that's do those are very large districts though. And that's also a very Very invisible level of government but the districts under the bill that I have which would establish a 135 member unicameral legislature. The districts would not get larger. Every every unit Campbell District would be the same size as the current house district. So you would not be increasing the size of the (00:23:23) district's the problem those Senators fear is that if we move to a unicameral legislature rural areas in particular are less likely to have representation that is immediately accessible to them. Certainly. I think your point is that the proportion of representation will remain the same as it is today, and that's that's certainly true. But as you travel throughout rural Minnesota and I had the opportunity of being in Northwestern Minnesota last week and again, it was a point that was driven very clear to me and I'm from the Red River Valley originally Gary that you have vast distances that are encompassed in a single legislative district and the likelihood that you're going to have a Slater who is coming to your local town or your local area and is accessible to you is certainly diminished if we significantly reduce the size the legislature certainly Minnesota has one of the largest legislators in the country. That's a very justifiable point of contention over many years, but with all the problems that are currently going on in rural rural Minnesota today in the the farm economy. I don't know that rural minnesotans in particular should view a move to a reduces legislature as anything that they should (00:24:39) embrace where you'll be going from 201 to 135. So that would be a reduction of about a third and but you know, one of the things that I I have never made as my main argument for this that we are reducing the sides and saving costs, you know, there may be some cost reduction here, but I'm not looking at this as primarily a cost reduction measure. I'm looking upon this as a measure that is In to do away with some of the more Arcane aspects of our current legislative system make the process more open make it more simple and make it easier for average people to understand what's going on and how bills get passed. (00:25:15) Would it be easier for a majority party whichever party that might be to essentially pass its legislative agenda irrespective of what members of the minority party might think in other words. Let's say the Minnesota house today was the the legislature would it be easier then for the House Republicans to pass all the bills they want to pass without even Consulting the Democrats or vice versa over in the Senate if that was the only body (00:25:46) well, yes, but that's because my me currently you have a situation where you have one house controlled by Republicans among house controlled by democrats in Minnesota. That isn't always the case and that just happens to be but we had many years. Democrats control the both the house and the Senate so I don't think that that that unit Campbell is going to make much difference and that you still have of course the possibility of a governor of a different party. We now have a governor who is other party that controls neither house. In fact doesn't even have representation in either house. So, you know, I think that that you still have that check with the governor there and the other thing that you can do, I mean, you know, when you if you pass it, if you do have a unicameral there are still going to be a rules that the the body itself can set or either by rule or by Statute and I think that there would be and I think there probably should be protections built in to make the process a little more difficult because you wouldn't have the to house procedure that you'd have to go through so you could have perhaps for readings instead of three readings of the bill you could you could have Last review of the bill you would you could build things into the system that could provide for the sort of check and review of legislation. That's that proponents of bicameralism claim now exists under a bicameral system (00:27:20) first Gary. Let me suggest that some of the procedural things that Senator Spear and other unicameral this would like to change could already be changed by legislative rules and if minnesotans were to embrace a single house legislature, there is no guarantee that the sort of procedural changes or guarantees. The Senators Pierre mentioned are in fact going to be adopted by that single house legislature experience suggests in in Nebraska. And again, I think Senator spear is wise not to embrace the Nebraska experience too closely depend on because in fact in Nebraska you have if anything less accessibility and accountability of legislatures legislators to The electorate you have in fact in that unicameral system a greater influence that's exercise by a special interests by large corporations well-funded labor unions. And in fact power is concentrated in the hands of a handful of senior legislators and committee chairs a bicameral system A two-house legislature, in fact guarantees that that power is diffused among the 201 legislators. There is a greater likelihood that the sort of expertise that you can draw upon in both bodies is going to make final legislation a better product and Gary if I can just just take long for a moment the argument that some certainly not Senator spear but some unicameral supporters argue about the cost savings many people. Support unicameral has been part because it will save what's estimated to be 20 million dollars annually in the operation the state legislature but there are many people including a political scientist who recently did a study based on on Nebraska's experience and others the suggest that a unicameral system. In fact is more likely to lead to higher government spending more regulation. It makes a certain amount of intuitive sense that legislators without having some other legislative body put a brake on their spending impulses are more likely to in fact try to get their pet project funded. It's a way that you you know, oftentimes assemble a majority vote for particular Appropriations, Bill. And so I think for those who look at unicameral ism is a way of reducing government in a very small way saving some money historical experience suggests precisely the opposite and that's one of the reasons that I Reversed my position on unicameral ISM because unicameral ISM in essence is going to lead to bigger government higher spending more regulation broadcast. Go ahead Senator brief (00:30:11) comment. I really can't believe Chris that you believe you used to work for the Minnesota house and I can't really believe that you think the power is diffused among 201 members power is concentrated in either a bicameral oral or a unicameral legislature among a certain number of people in leadership positions and the One reform that we can't make under bicameralism. Chris said we can make some reforms under the present system. But the one that we formed that we can't make under bicameralism is getting rid of conference committees conference committees are an almost integral part of the bicameral system where the two houses at the end a committee of each house gets together to try to work out the differences between the bills as they come out of their respective bodies conference committees are where that Power is concentrated. You have a handful of budget bills that are most important bills in each session and you've got ten members on each of those conference committees. They essentially make the final decision as to what is going to what the budget is going to look like the legislature. Yes has to approve but it's an up or down vote. It can't be amended and if you vote no on one of these conference committee reports, you're probably going to drive the legislature in the special session, which everybody wants to avoid. So I think that in the that conference committees are the one feature of bicameralism which I assure a concentration of power that you would not have under a unicameral body. Okay, (00:31:42) Chris just a quick comment and then I want to move on to some other questions about conference committees in taking too often very different approaches to a particular piece of legislation usually produce something that is not totally satisfying to anyone but I think that that is the very Genius of the American political system is to affect that sort of compromise and Conference committees often times kill some very very bad proposed legislation. Certainly a conference committee structure is is going to involve those who have the greatest expertise on a particular issue and it is in fact an up-or-down vote when it returns to the two bodies of the legislature. But the fact is that under a unicameral ISM as well. You have committee chairs who are all powerful in a given in a given area of expertise. They can effectively kill any legislation that is personally where a given committee chair is personally opposed and that is in fact where we see the concentration of power in a unicameral system, Minnesota democracy has flourished well with a bicameral system and it frankly makes no sense for us to make a change to a single house legislature. We're broadcasting live from the Minnesota State Fair, Minnesota Public Radio Booth here at Fair corner of Judson and Nelson if you're out at the fair make sure you stop by and visit this hour we're talking about the proposal to move Minnesota to A one-house legislature essentially get one at rid of one of the chambers and we would move on we would be the second state in the nation to Adopt A one-house legislature Nebraska being the other and it looks like it's going to be a nice Lively debate about this issue in the legislature next session. The specific debate has to do with whether this issue is going to end up on the ballot in November of 2000 whether voters will have a chance to decide yay or nay joining us here on the stage state. Senator Allen Spear and former Republican party chair Chris George artists and let's go back to those of you in the audience. By the way, if you have a comment or anything just come on up to the mic. Let's go back to the phones. Meanwhile former state. Senator. George Pillsbury is on Center Pillsbury. You've been a longtime advocate of this unicameral idea, right? (00:33:53) Yes. I have ever since 1971 actually when I saw two conservative house. Mouse dedicated to doing what they thought was a good for Minnesota failed to come to an agreement and we had to have two special sessions out here. So but I want I really wanted to say is it's incorrect to say that our forefathers started with a bicameral system our country began in 1776 with the Continental Congress, which was unicameral. They only went to a bicameral system because the states at that time refused to give up authority to a people's legislature. They insisted on having a senate where each state could have equal representation. The other thing I wanted to comment is we make a terrible mistake of referencing and Nebraska. Nebraska is doing a very good job as a single house legislature, but they are quite different because they're nonpartisan that makes all the difference in the world and we're not suggesting for a moment that we copy. We're more suggesting. We copy all the The camel governments around the world. There's very few bicameral government's left. And only those that are left have like we do in Washington a second house that's chosen like the House of Lords in London like the Council of provinces in South Africa. But but then I wanted to say one more two more things this issue about the rural representation. It's it's quite the contrary today is if you live up and run it Roger most districts. You have a heck of a time finding Roger because his district is so big by eliminating one house and going to how a house or District the size of our house districts. It'll be much easier for that rural constituent to find his or her representative you eliminate those large Senate districts that we have up in northern Minnesota and replace them by just a simple house district. And then one last thing I want to say is that I was just had Missioner Hennepin County Commissioner Mark stinging than my office just visiting me and he said my goodness George. He said we run our Hennepin County Commission as a unicameral legislature. No one has suggested that we need a bicameral system and I was safe sharing with him a comment that I heard from the commissioner in Douglas County. He said gosh it would be so wonderful if we just had one person in st. Paul that we could call up who to be accountable to represent our districts. So I honestly believe that the rural constituency will be easier served by a single house legislature certainly percentage-wise. There will be just as many rural or greater Minnesota legislators as there are in the legislature today. In fact, I made an (00:36:50) analysis. Thank Senator. I'm talking too much. Okay? No you're not. But but let's let's move along here Chris George Lucas if it's good enough for a henna. County if it's good enough for Douglas County if it's good enough for school board's all across the state if it's good enough for City council's why in the world isn't it? Good enough for the Minnesota Legislature during the state legislature exercise is a far larger Authority and legislating over virtually every aspect of Our Lives. Then does an individual local unit of government, you know, the founding fathers thing can go to back to mr. Pillsbury's first point the founding fathers embraced bicameralism as I think I pointed out earlier not simply as part of a political compromise to put together the US Constitution, but because they thought that it was an important Safeguard against tyrannous legislative majorities. I think that that that impulse is as relevant today on the eve of the 21st century as it was back in 1787 and the founding fathers in particular Madison in The Federalist Papers are quite eloquent about the need for various checks. On on legislative bodies, so I would refer anyone who is interested in sort of the fundamental reason for bicameralism to to look at what the founding fathers said and the rationale based upon their bitter experience with with King George to look at those things and consider how how we want government in Minnesota Opera. Do we want in fact it to be easier to push through unpopular measures or do we want to be able to to be able to get a second (00:38:34) opinion? Well, you know, the founding fathers were divided on this issue. Yes Madison did make the statements that that crisp refers to Jefferson and Franklin on the other hand expressed skepticism about the need to have a two-house legislature, but I really think we ought to keep the federal model and the state model separate because The bicameralism I don't oppose bicameralism on the federal level. We have a federal government. We have a government that's made up of 50 states as well as a population at large and our US Congress reflects. The fact that the states have a certain degree of sovereignty the Senate represents that on the other hand the house represents the people as a whole so I think bicameralism at that level makes some sense and I think that's a quite different issue from what we have at the state level. And I'd also like to point out following up with George Pillsbury said we're looking for models. We actually don't have to go as far away as Nebraska because we have two jurisdictions that are closer to us than Nebraska that have unicameral legislators. And those are Manitoba and Ontario. All of the Canadian provinces have unicameral legislature. They have a parliamentary Be system. So there's a difference there but so is the brass brass cos different because of it. It's a nonpartisan body. So, you know, there are lots of different variations out there that we can look at for models the brassicas not the only (00:40:12) one. Okay brief comment Chris before we go to this more questions there. I was simply going to say that if anyone looks at various major pieces of legislation that have been urged upon the Congress the legislature over the years that have died as a result of bicameralism. We should we should count our lucky stars. You look at President Clinton's very radical and ultimately unpopular Health Care proposal the 1993-94 a DOT of its own weight in part because of the considered judgment and two separate bodies. Similarly. I think there are things that the people on Senators Pierce out of the out could point to as well having two Chambers and having to persuade two different bodies of legislators the house that typically is more responsive to to the public and the Senate that tends to take a Work longer view of things actually is to the public benefit to make sure that we don't embrace the kinds of laws that are ultimately unnecessary. Go ahead sir. Hi, my name is Andy from Saint Paul actually to follow up on that as wondering. Well, there's been a lot of discussion about the difference in the way the Senators and legislators at the federal level elected since it Minnesota. Both houses are basically population-based what inherently are the differences between senators and representatives the types of bills. They push the types of attitudes. They bring it's sort of think. Well, if we had four bodies we'd have four times more conversation four times more compromise. Is there anything inherently different between the general intellectual make up for bent of the Senate and that of the house Senator Senator spear our Senators inherently smarter than members of the house. (00:41:52) We sometimes think so, but probably not the I think there's the one major difference. Between the Senate and the house at the state level as their now constituted is that Senators have four year terms and house members have two year terms there really isn't anything else that's very different. And I think when Chris talks about the Senate taking a longer view that is connected to term length because the house is always looking over its shoulder at the next election, which is never more than 18 20 months away. The Senate has the luxury of longer terms where it sometimes can take the longer view on things because there isn't always an election imminent and under the Bell that I'm proposing. Everybody would have a four-year term it would be four years staggered half. The legislature would run one year have to legislature would run through years later. So everyone would have a four-year term and everyone would presumably have that longer view. I Think there's anything inherent in the nature of the Senate that gives it a longer View and the checks, you know, just one other comment in terms of what Chris was just saying about these checks and balances and the bad legislation that has been killed under a bicameral system, you know, a lot of those a lot of that legislation would not even pass one house. If it weren't that the members of that house knew that there was another body there to kill it. I mean, I don't know how many times I've heard people say particularly on the house. I'll ask a House member. Why did you vote for that dumb piece of legislation and they'll say oh, well, it's popular in my district. And I know that the Senate will kill it anyway, and that is that's very common. So, you know, it's not a matter of checks and balances. It's a matter of very often. Legislators legislators in a bicameral body doing things irresponsibly because they know there's somebody that the and who will check up on (00:44:03) them. It's go back to the phones John here question, please. (00:44:06) Yes. Thanks for letting me on so far everybody's been talking about this and I judge it as talking about the mechanics of various angles and details of the way legislators work and don't work. But I'd like to point out that when when the Baskins voted in unicameral ISM in 1937, they voted in a broad concept and but it wasn't just you know cameras and they brought in they brought in article 3 of The Constitution which in other places more currently in popular is called initiative or referendum now article 3 has five very strong components to it. And so it gives those people in Nebraska opportunity to Precise more power over their legislators. Now, there are some very important things that have happened down there for example year after year after year to year after two years after two years the people have voted down a very unpopular tax that the legislature and the governor's all want it and so it placed like an earlier caller set more power in the hands of the people and I would like to see both opponents and proponents of the unicameral issue to factor in and bring in as much examination and inspection of Nebraska's article 3, then nobody is has done that yet and that should be (00:45:34) proud. Okay. Thanks John quick comments from both as I do. We have a number of callers yet (00:45:38) that that really is a separate issue initiative referendum the legislature did put on that on the ballot. I believe it was 1982 that that was put on the ballot and it did not receive the majority of all those voting in that election and surf there. Or was rejected but I think that's a separate (00:45:57) issue Gary John's point is a good one, Nebraska without having the sort of safeguards of a second house at least has had the ability for the people themselves to exercise their political power through through the initiative process. That's something that we don't have in Minnesota and Senator Spears. Correct a point out its most recent failure. However, in the three times that we've had initiative and referendum on the ballot, it has gotten a majority of those who have at least voted on that particular measure in it. My hope is that the Governor Ventura will focus his efforts in fact and on trying to get initiative referendum through the state senate rather than in pushing this ill-considered effort to bring us unicameral ISM estate other question that requires quick comments in terms of the governor and executive power. How does this affect the governor future Governors would they be stronger weaker? What would a one-house legislature do in terms of the governor's Powers Gary? Governor Ventura and many of his predecessors have supported unicameral ISM, but I think it's a it's a case of them getting something that they may not really want in the end. You have to be careful what you wish for again. Not not to rely solely on the Nebraska example, but certainly a number of others as well Executives. In fact have less ability to influence the legislative process then their ability to negotiate with a bifurcated State Legislature. I think the Governor Ventura given his legislative bashing would probably better serve his own personal interests. If if this effort for a single house legislature were not to Prevail Senator spear. Would you (00:47:38) agree? I don't think there's any way of knowing I don't think that the governor's power is necessarily either reduced or enhanced by a unicameral legislature. It would depend on a lot of other factors that are related to the political culture of the state Governor Ventura is supports So does the the honorary chair of the committee for a single house legislators? Former Governor Elmer L Andersen who I think most people would agree is probably one of the most thoughtful people ever to have occupied the governorship in the state of Minnesota and there's a very different sort of person from Governor Ventura. So there's a fairly broad spectrum here in terms of people who have served as governor who support unicameral is (00:48:21) MM. Let's get at least one more caller on before we wrap up Josh. Go ahead. (00:48:25) Hi Senator spear. I just want to say that I'm a longtime admirer of yours. And I think you're one of the more wise people in the end. They State Legislature, but I have to say you're supported this. I'm a big a part of this and your support to forces me to rethink a little bit but it's not my concern is the question about I haven't heard people talk too much about the fact that we have a representative democracy and in my view one of the big benefits of that is that it blocks to a great degree the the tyranny of the majority and the At the conference committees make it hard to pass popular legislation through the through the state house. I find as a very positive thing and notwithstanding. Mr. Dargis is desire to keep this spending down which it always agree with it makes it hard to pass. What other unpopular legislation (00:49:12) thanks Josh quick comment here. Senator would have would it make it a little easier just to Ram through. This is a (00:49:17) legislation. I don't think so. As I said earlier, I think you can you can build in the same kinds of review process and the same kind of checks and balances process and unicum Elizabeth. You haven't bicameralism and the problem with conference committees is not always that they block things the problem with conference committees is that they sometimes let things out that ought not get out because you've got a majority of you know, six people on each side of a conference committee that wanted even though the legislature is a whole might not and I've had a vote for conference committee reports that had things in it that I thought would junk and but you have to vote for them because they're Out of the conference committee (00:49:55) report now actually the legislature. We've got two minutes left to go. The legislature will be presumably voting next year on not on unicameral ISM as such but on whether this will go on the ballot and how is that going to turn out Gary? I predict that although many unicameral proponents believe that it will sail through the house. I think that it's in deep trouble in the House of Representatives unlikely even to go to Senator Spears body where I think it has even less chance of prevailing. I know Governor Ventura is going to be asking legislators to at least put it on the ballot but I think as minnesotans become more acquainted with this issue and understand the the value of having a second legislative body to check bad legislation. That would otherwise come from a single house. I think that they're going to support those legislators who are opposed to to this ill-considered scheme and will recognize that we really have a pretty responsive state government here in Minnesota Thunder spirit. (00:50:54) Curating I think it's uphill. I think it's particularly uphill in the Senate. There's no doubt that right. Now the votes are not there in the Senate to pass this. I think a lot depends on Governor Ventura and I think in order to pass this he has to put the full weight of the governorship of his office power that he has behind it. And if he does that I think it has a chance but it's uphill (00:51:17) are we likely to see a lot of money poured into a big high-tech big ad campaigns pro and con (00:51:23) or listing fairly low-key you mean if it gets on the ballot well both the (00:51:28) Ford gets on the ballot and if it gets on the (00:51:29) ballot, well, I think there will be certainly a spirited campaigns. I'm not sure I'd call them. Hi money big money campaigns. I this is not the kind of issue that that mobilizes the big corporations particularly, but I think that there will certainly be a spirited campaign (00:51:46) across Georgia fits. Gary I think the former Senator pillsbury's group is already vowed to spend up to two million dollars on this issue. I think that they will be very aggressive and in trying to persuade minnesotans on what is really a pretty reckless idea Governor Ventura is way behind it and his celebrity certainly will give it currency but in the end it's a bad idea. We don't have a broken system here and in the state and I think that reason will prevail at the end of the 2000 legislative session on this issue. Thanks so much for joining us today state. Senator Allen spear former Republican party chair Chris George Lucas joining us here at the state fair to talk about this proposal to move to a one-house legislature here in the state of Minnesota programming on NPR is supported by the Pillsbury company Foundation caring for the community by giving kids a loving lift. Well that does it for our midday program today like to thank those of you who've been sitting here in our audience those of you listening on the radio, especially those of you who called And tried to call in with your questions Big Show out here tomorrow at noon Garrison Keillor will be here with I think it's a big musical quiz. I'm not sure but it's always a fun time and that will be at noon tomorrow. Mr. Keeler will be here and we will be back on midday on the fair at the fair on Labor Day.