Hawaii’s World

By A.A. Smyser

Tuesday, May 18, 1999

---

The benefits of a
one-house Legislature

BEFORE everyone stops being mad at the Legislature, let's revisit the idea of making it one-house. Unicameral makes eminently good sense for those of us who believe in orderly, open democracy.

It is basic to the parliaments of Great Britain, Japan and New Zealand, among others. It hasn't spread beyond Nebraska in the United States because political power brokers don't like its openness.

Our Hawaii government unions banded to kill it before the 1978 constitutional convention. Public opinion polls showed growing support. That scared the gang that likes to make trades manipulatively off-stage.

They spotted unicameral proponents and got rid of them. Articulate supporters like the late Tom Hitch, economist for First Hawaiian Bank, were mowed down in the voting for delegates.

Unicameral was pretty well dead on arrival at the Con Con. A few surviving advocates, like state Rep. Barbara Marumoto, had no chance at resuscitation given the successful union pre-screenings. These also stopped initiative, referendum and recall.

In any election, organized groups that get their backers to vote have disproportionate influence. They are stronger still in special elections with even lower voter turnouts.

All our county councils are unicameral. We may revile what they do, but it's pretty open.

Two-house promotes:

Last-minute pile-ups of bills -- Only "easy" bills (like the budget appropriation to run the session) pass both houses and go to the governor in the early weeks of any session. With the others, Senate and House versions often are deliberately made different to throw them into conference committees as bargaining tools for trade-offs on other bills in the high-pressure final days.

Conference committees -- These are the under-recognized third house of the Legislature. Near the end of any session, dozens are working simultaneously -- usually headed by power brokers appointed by the Senate president and House speaker. There's a lot of offstage wheeling and dealing with only lobbyists tuned in. "I'll support (or kill) this if you'll support (or kill) that." The public is left in the dark until the final deals are struck.

Sloppy and sometimes surprise legislation from last-minute haste or conniving -- Naturally.

Bad legislation from the past is protected. California's former assembly speaker, Jesse Unruh, a unicameral advocate, saw that as the most crucial difference between one house and two.

EXAMPLE: If the Honolulu City Council wants to change an existing law, a simple 5-4 vote can do it if the mayor will sign, 6-3 if he won't.

Try to change some of the entrenched government union rights already law in Hawaii. You must win majorities in both houses and the governor's signature. If he disapproves, only two-thirds majorities in both houses can override him. Status quo forces have a heavy upper hand.

Two houses also make it hard-to-impossible to tamper with package bills coming from conference committees, a few containing hundreds of items. Members must accept the bad items if they want to OK the good, or kill what's good in them in order to kill what's bad. What the public doesn't want has a far better chance with two houses than with unicameral.

---

A.A. Smyser is the contributing editor
and former editor of the the Star-Bulletin
His column runs Tuesday and Thursday.