This commentary was written by Jon Margolis of South Burlington.
The State Senate primaries have come and gone, and the 57 candidates have been whittled down to 48, 25 Democrats and 19 Republicans.
On Nov. 8, they will be whittled down again, to 30, who will take office in Montpelier come January.
Then we can get rid of them.
Oh, not the people. They’re fine folks — Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, whatevers, May they all live long, healthy and happy lives.
Let’s just get rid of the Vermont Senate. Who needs it?
Who needs a state senate anywhere? As recently noted by the estimable Harold Meyerson in American Prospect, ever since the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Baker v. Carr (1964) that both houses of all legislatures had to be apportioned by population, state senates have been superfluous.
Nebraska has done just fine with a one-house legislature since 1937. In only two of the other 49 states does one party not control both houses, usually by large margins.
Precisely the case here. The Senate is more than 76 percent Democratic and/or Progressive; the House of Representatives is more than 65 percent. For the foreseeable future, any Vermont legislature will be left-leaning no matter its structure.
So why not have a simpler structure?
Congress has two houses because it was created by the states, and while the states are not as sovereign as they claim to be, they do retain some independent and autonomous powers. So it makes sense to have one house representing states.
Vermont counties and municipalities have neither sovereignty nor autonomy. They are creatures of the state. Here, only people need representation. They can get it better in one chamber.
Here’s the plan: abolish the Senate and cut the House from 150 members to… well, why not 50? Nebraska has 49 lawmakers (called senators) which is enough. It’s one legislator for every 38,775 Nebraskans. A 50-member Vermont Legislature would be one for every 12,720 citizens, one of the lowest ratios in the country.
Then pay them a decent salary, say $50,000 a year. That’s $2.5 million a year, roughly the cost of today’s 180 legislators.
With that kind of income, more young people might get interested in running for the Legislature, which now resembles a naturally occurring retirement community.
And with only 50 districts, each one would be diverse enough — a mix of farmers, small-town dwellers, city folk, suburbanites — to ward off the parochialism that can plague a legislator whose district is just a few farm towns or a few city neighborhoods.
Some good government advocates worry that under a one-house legislature it would be harder to block unwise bills.
But it also would be harder to block wise bills. Besides, American politics comes with ample opportunity to obstruct. Most legislation has to be cleared by two or more committees. Special interests and their well-paid lobbyists are skilled at working those committee members, and at engineering public opinion. Make them earn their keep.
By themselves, these changes wouldn’t save that much money. The Legislature doesn’t cost much — about $17 million in fiscal year 2022, according to a memorandum from the Joint Fiscal Office. That’s out of a total $8.126 billion budget.
But as has been reported, the Statehouse is too small. The committee rooms are cramped and airless, meaning unhealthy. Lawmakers are thinking about adding a floor above the cafeteria. That would be expensive.
And it would be unnecessary if the Senate is abolished. Just knock down the walls between those small Senate committee rooms on the first floor and the even smaller House committee warrens on the second and third floors. Poof! A smaller (but sufficient) number of bigger rooms where members can spread out around the table and visitors don’t have to crawl over one another. There might even be room for all the lawmakers to have an office.
Much cheaper than adding a new floor, and it wouldn’t spoil the aesthetically appealing symmetry of the Statehouse.
But the important advantage would be neither aesthetic nor economic; it would be governmental and political. Every Vermonter would have one representative in Montpelier, one person to petition, plead to, yell at. Those representatives, with professional salaries, would be more likely to have professional attitudes toward the job and they would all be able to spend more time listening to their constituents while serving in a slimmed-down, more efficient institution.
This is an idea whose time is coming. Other states will consider it. Vermonters often talk — indeed sometimes too carelessly talk — about Vermont “leading the way.” Try leading the way on this one.