During the last depression, Nebraska senator George Norris convinced the good people of the Cornhusker State that they could save money and create a more efficient government system if they would eliminate one of the legislative chambers.  Thus the “Unicam” came into being—the only unicameral state legislature in the country.  Adopted by constitutional amendment in 1934 and implemented in 1937, Nebraska has retained their unicameral now for over 70 years. It seems to work just fine.

It is very difficult to defend the way the Idaho Legislature is currently structured.  If we don’t change the present system, the Idaho Legislature is wide open to the charge that we do not need a bicameral legislature—that, in fact, it is wasteful and inefficient. There are two factors that lead us to this position.

First, in Idaho we elect one senator and two representatives from each district.  This arrangement stems from the fact that, over 40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that both chambers of state legislatures had to be apportioned on the basis of “one person, one vote”.  In other words, states could no longer follow the practice of allocating one senator for each county (or town or other local unit of government).  That old system obviously favored rural interests. In Idaho, for example, 16% of the population could elect a majority of the state senate.  The court put an end to that practice in 1965.  So, if senates could no longer represent counties, how ought senate districts to be constructed?  Idaho’s solution was to simply draw the House and Senate districts exactly the same. 

The senator in District 13, for example, serves exactly the same 45,000 people as each of the two representatives from District 13.  Unlike most states, the house districts in Idaho are not subdivisions of the senate district.  House candidates declare for seat A or seat B, but each seat represents all 45,000 in the district—same as the senate.  In Idaho, then, we have 3 legislators (2 representatives and 1 senator) in each district representing exactly the same people. There are only five other states in which House and Senate districts are the same.  Everywhere else, each house member represents a unique and smaller district than senators.

The second factor is that in Idaho both House and Senate members serve two year terms. This was a common feature of colonial legislatures, and 8 of the original 13 states still have this arrangement.  But very few other states do this.  Most states (32) have 2 year terms for the state representatives and 4 year terms for the state senators. Five states (all but one in the South) have 4 year terms for members of both chambers.

Combine these two features and we have representatives and senators in Idaho with exactly the same term of office and representing exactly the same district.  What, then, is the point of having two chambers? (And don’t say “checks and balances” because the executive and judicial branches provide those). In a time of budget crisis, it is very hard to justify this arrangement.  Nebraska’s arrangement starts to look more sensible and economical.

In truth, I’m not really advocating a unicameral system, but we need to do something to justify having a bicameral legislature, because under its current configuration it is hard to justify. There are several ways to make the bicameral system more acceptable.  We could change the term of office for senators to 4 years, leaving the House terms at 2 years. 

But I think a better solution is to make the House constituencies into single member districts, in which each House member would represent one-half of a senate district.  Thus, representation would exert itself in somewhat different ways in the two chambers.  And, because a candidate for the House would only have to reach half as many voters, campaign costs might be reduced, making it easier for more potential candidates to consider running.

We are approaching another redistricting cycle.  Updated census figures will be released in 2011 and the Idaho Redistricting Commission will then be charged with redrawing the legislative lines.  That would be the ideal time to change the current system and establish House districts separate from the Senate districts.

Gary Moncrief
Professor of Political Science and a University Foundation Research Scholar at Boise State University