Kevin Richert's  aptly titled editorial, State Board needs to refocus on higher ed  (April 13, 2009), scored a bulls-eye, but his dismissal of Idaho State University President Arthur Vailas's medical education vision for the State of Idaho as ill-conceived, missed the mark altogether.

Last week a bill (S1184) to amend Idaho’s redistricting law was introduced by Senate Pro Tem Geddes and cosponsored by House Speaker Denney.  Whether it will pass this session is problematic, but it heralds the beginning of the decennial dance known as redistricting. Actually, “dance” isn’t really the right analogy; “musical chairs” is more like it.  It is an issue that most of the public doesn’t care about but which overtly political interests (parties, interest groups and legislators) care about deeply.  A few key points:

In the course of defending passage by the House of four Joint memorials, essentially telling the federal government to back off, some members unleashed the old rhetoric about "state sovereignty."  It's all well and good for state representatives to defend state powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction, while warning federal authorities to adhere to their jurisdictional boundaries, but let's avoid claims that are indefensible.  

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.