To the Editor:
High on the list of unnecessary expenses that states can cut should be
the costs of operating a two-house legislature instead of emulating
Nebraska by adopting unicameralism. New Zealand, a fine (and complex)
country of almost 4.5 million people, operates very well with a single
House of Representatives. The 27 other American states with under five
million in population (besides Nebraska) could easily save money and
probably get both better and more accountable government by eliminating
their upper houses.
Indeed, to his great credit, Rick A. Lazio, a former member of Congress
who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, has suggested the
same for New York. He may be right, though there may be a stronger
argument for two houses in the largest states.
There is no argument for bicameralism in the smaller states, especially
when, unlike New Zealand, a parliamentary system, they all have
governors who have the veto power should the legislature pass notably
unwise legislation.
Sanford Levinson
Austin, Tex., May 25, 2010
The writer is a professor at the University of Texas Law School and
in the government department at the University of Texas at Austin.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 