Every so often, state Sen. Gary LeBeau, a Democrat from East Hartford, entertains us with his proposal to transform the General Assembly into a unicameral legislature; that is, one big, happy family, with no “House of Representatives” and “Senate.”
Only Nebraska has gone the one-house route for the state legislature — and to be sure, there are no torch-light parades marching toward the Connecticut State Capitol to demand one, presumably smaller, theoretically more efficient and less mediocre version of what exists now.
One of the colonial justifications for a bicameral House-Senate tradition at the federal level was to create government gridlock, with the House and the Senate and the president and the Supreme Court at odds, to guarantee that the powerful central government would be none-too-powerful.
In modern Connecticut, this strategy is achieved by electing Republican governors to guard the Treasury against the worst of what the Democrat-controlled General Assembly comes up with.
The primary driving force for bicameralism in the United States was affectionately known as the “Connecticut Compromise,” or the “Great Compromise,” which created a Congress in which postage-sized states such as Connecticut could have two senators, just like the grownup states — but House members would be doled out by population size.
The broad philosophical justification for bicameralism envisions senators, both federal and state, as philosopher-kings, representing larger geographic areas and serving longer terms, while the House members would be more parochial, worrying about the three square-blocks of political territory they called home.
In modern times, the supposed distinction between brainy senators and brawny representatives seems a bit strained.
If LeBeau really wants to have a good time with this, he should broaden his scenario beyond a sleek Connecticut General Assembly.
The unicameral legislature should be the first step in the process of turning Connecticut into a snobby, bedroom suburb — which, to some extent, it already is.
Not only should LeBeau propose a unicameral legislature; he should propose a nonpartisan legislature: No Democrats, no Republicans. Connecticut, with a population the size of the city of Chicago, doesn’t need hundreds of partisan politicians bickering at the state level. Our primary legislative objectives should be to plow the streets, lock up the bad guys, and hold schools accountable for performance.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell has already shown us an admittedly imperfect road toward a nonpartisan, town manager-council style of state government. She proposed a budget, the Democrats ignored it, Jodi sighed and tweaked it a bit; the Democrats fussed with it — and Rell, with about 12 seconds of consultation with other Republicans, sighed and said, “well, alright, if that’s what you want.” With 25 more conservative, nonpartisan legislators, and no inter-party bickering, fiscal sanity might have been achieved.
Many of the Republicans in Connecticut would be considered left-leaning Socialists in other parts of the country. Except for the Democrats’ destructive affection for state employee labor unions, the distinction between the parties in Connecticut isn’t worth the end result: a number of talented, sophisticated, experienced Republicans can’t get elected to the General Assembly because of a party label that doesn’t mean very much.
LeBeau’s proposal should also recommend a much shorter legislative session in Connecticut. Many states more complex and difficult to govern than Connecticut limit their sessions to 60 days per year — and some only meet every other year. That’s called “limited government” — and it could certainly work well in the suburban office park of a place that we call home.
There we have it. A small, nonpartisan, one-house legislature, in session just long enough to water the plants.
Welcome to the suburb of Connecticut.
Laurence D. Cohen is a freelance writer.
