Two Many Houses

My Brother Merkt posted an open letter to the Speaker urging longer legislative terms. Assemblyman Merkt’s proposal calls for Senators to be elected for one six year and one four year term, with Assemblyman to serve two three year terms and one four year term. This would, the Assemblyman avers, serve the public better by ensuring against terms so short that, effectively, nothing gets done.

There’s some merit to that thought, but I respectfully disagree. Representatives SHOULD live in perpetual fear of the wrath of a provoked electorate, and act accordingly.

For instance, might the public, given another year (or more), have forgotten their anger at the legislators who foolishly supported Governor Florio’s tax increases, just as they almost forgot their anger at the Governor himself (at least vis a vis his opponent)?

One comment to the politicsnj website sagaciously notes the foolishness of having both Houses elected from the same districts. He suggests that Senate districts be twice the size of Assembly districts.

Perhaps, we might consider going even further, and discuss: do we really need a second House at all?

The bicameral legislative system arose with each House representing different constituencies. In England, the Commons and the Lords brought totally different perspectives to issues. Here, the House of Representatives represents the people of individual districts. As initially designed, the Senate represented the states qua states. In New Jersey, the Senate theoretically represented counties, the Assembly the people (although the plan was never particularly well considered)

In New York, Senate and Assembly Districts overlap, resulting in representation of different constituencies in each House. Here, however, the two Houses represent the same districts. There would seem to be little rationale for a system which represents the same folks in different bodies with essentially the same powers.

The question presented, then, is how to (a) ensure political responsiveness, (b) provide legislators with sufficient time to actually do their jobs and (c) avoid dual representation of the same interests.

I respectfully contend that by colleague’s proposal compromises (a) and ignores (c) altogether.

One possible solution: eliminate one House of the Legislature entirely.

Consider: instead of 40 districts, decrease the number to 30, each represented by three Senators. In the year directly after the census, the entire Senate stands for election. The top vote getter in each district serves for three years; the second for two; the third for one. And one third of the body is elected each year thereafter.

This offers the added advantage of reducing the number of legislators from 120 to 90.

Every year, the people would hold a referendum on legislative performance. Tied with redistricting reform (no partisan gerrymanders) and -- one of my personal favorites -- a proposal to permit every representative to get his/her bills posted for votes, whether the leaders like it or not, this would go a long way toward ensuring a truly responsive government.

If we ever have another constitutional convention – as we should – the assembled delegates might wish to reconsider the existing arrangement. (After they’re done repealing Abbott and Mt. Laurel) Different Houses considering the same proposals and representing the same constituencies makes very little sense.

File this under interesting philosophical exercises, never to be heard from again.