Midlands Voices: Legislature can be partisan — a bad idea — without constitutional amendment

When I retired from a career that included 34 years as registered lobbyist, I wrote a book that examined George Norris’s original ideas regarding what he termed “A Model State Legislature,” a piece published on The New York Times opinion page on Jan. 28, 1923. My book’s goal was to discover whether, in its 80th year, Nebraska’s unicameral continued to reflect Norris’s original vision. One aspect of answering that question consisted of conducting a personal interview with the then-speaker of the Legislature and every living former speaker, as well as two other former officials of the body.

If one overriding finding emerged from that exercise, it was that each and every interviewee stated total and unwavering support for our state’s nonpartisan, one-house parliamentary body. Interestingly, each and every one I spoke to gave at least as much importance to the nonpartisanship of the Nebraska Legislature as to its being one house. And more than one of them said that if push comes to shove, the nonpartisan status is probably even more important than unicameralism.

I happily admit that when I started the research for the book, I did not understand that Nebraska’s constitution provides only that the election of the members of the Legislature — and not the organization and operation of the body — be on a nonpartisan basis. The constitution provides that the body shall elect its own leadership, and the manner of its organization and proceedings actually are captured in the Rules of the Legislature, adopted at the beginning of every two-year body. Interestingly, I was far from alone in this misconception, which I found is widely held, even by some in and around the Legislature itself.

So, if the Legislature would adopt LR282CA and the citizens of Nebraska approve the constitutional amendment at the ballot box, what would change?

Actually, not much. The state’s two political parties would presumably each field a candidate in each district, but in most of the races — especially in Omaha and Lincoln — they do that now. Presumably, each candidate would openly identify their party, as would the ballot. But unless the Legislature would change its rules, the manner in which the successful candidates serve the state and their constituents would not change.

So why is it being proposed? The answer to that question, in a word, is power. In addressing the opening day of Nebraska’s first unicameral Legislature, George Norris told the members of that body, “You are the members of the first Legislature of Nebraska to hold your positions without any partisan obligation to any machine, to any boss or to any alleged political leader.” Norris went on to tell the members, “You have an opportunity to render a service to your fellow citizens that no other Legislature has ever had.”

In our interview, former Lt. Gov. and President of the Legislature Kim Robak most likely said it best: “Nonpartisanship makes it possible for members to work together who otherwise would not.”

I have no doubt that the political parties would like to have more to say about who serves in our Legislature, as well as what they do when they get there. But Nebraskans have only to look at the U.S. Congress to understand how well that would serve the public interest.

Or not.

Ron Jensen is an erstwhile state official who also served two tours of duty, totaling some 34 years, as a lobbyist at the Nebraska unicameral Legislature.