The Birth of the Unicameral

Senator George Norris championed the unicameral legislature during the 1920s and 1930s, arguing for its advantages over the two-house system. In this episode, we explore Senator Norris's efforts to establish the unicameral in Nebraska in the 1964 Nebraska History Magazine article "George W. Norris: The Unicameral Legislature and the Progressive Ideal" by Robert F. Wesser.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
The following episode features ahistoric article from the
Nebraska History magazine. This article may reflect the
language and attitudes of its time and while it offers
valuable insight into the past, may contain expressions or
viewpoints that are outdated or offensive by today's standards.
Any outdated terms do not reflect the current views or
perspectives of the Nebraska State Historical Society.
Welcome to the Nebraska History podcast.

(00:20):
I'm your host, Chris Goforth. Each episode we explore articles
written and published in Nebraska History Magazine.
The idea of a unicameral legislature was a latent passion
for Senator George Norris. In the 1920s.
He sought to keep his idea aliveby writing newspaper and
magazine articles emphasizing the advantages of the One House
system. Let's look back at these early

(00:42):
ideals of the unicameral in this1964 article titled George W
Norris, The Unicameral Legislature and the Progressive
Ideal by Robert F Wesser. Recently, historians have
undertaken a re evaluation of the decade of the 1920s in
America. They have sought to emphasize
the periods relationship to the progressive movement on the one

(01:03):
hand, and the New Deal on the other hand, thus shifting the
historical focus of the Jazz Agefrom its bizarre qualities to
its continuities with past and future developments.
Often cited as illustrating the bridge between early 20th
century progressivism and New Deal liberalism is the career of

(01:23):
Nebraska's renowned US Senator George W Norris, and
specifically Norris's lonely fight to save federal government
properties at Muscle Shoals, AL from the outstretched hands of
private power companies. Within this context, the Muscle
Shoals controversy resolved itself from a debate over public
water power, policy, conservation, and federal state

(01:45):
relationships, and throughout the decade served as a haunting
reminder of the languishing spirit of progressivism.
There was another phase of Norris's work in these years,
his efforts in behalf of establishing a unicameral
legislature in Nebraska, which harked back to earlier 20th
century reformism, it's political and governmental
ideals. To the progressive mind, one of

(02:09):
the chief wrongs in American life was the growth in the
latter 19th century of the largecorporation and the inevitable,
if regrettable, consequences of the vast accumulations of
capital. Men of wealth could, and often
did, ally themselves with politicians in order to secure
for their businesses legislativefavors and preferred treatment.

(02:32):
The progressive response to thisphenomenon was simple and
direct, calling for some form ofsocietal control and regulation,
particularly of private utilities engaged in the public
service, and simultaneously for the re establishment of
political responsibility among governmental officials.
In various ways such responsibility was to be

(02:54):
restored, each in turn renderinglocal, state, and even federal
office holders more directly accountable to the people whom
they presumably served. So there were the direct
primary, the initiative referendum and recall, the short
ballot, the direct election of senators and others.
Also in these years, the idea ofa unicameral legislature took

(03:17):
hold in a number of states, though in no single instance was
the change affected during the Progressive Era.
Senator Norris's own interest inreforming what to him was the
illogical bicameral system went back well beyond the Progressive
period to the 1880s, when, as a young lawyer in Beaver City, he

(03:37):
had several opportunities to runfor the Nebraska State
Legislature. However, the low pay of a
lawmaker and the fact that legislative sessions coincided
with his busiest legal season, both characteristic weaknesses
of the conventional system, he later argued, compelled him to
refuse nominations. It was not until 1923 that

(03:59):
Norris, now with 20 years of congressional experience behind
him, publicly confessed his determination to reform the
machinery of government as well as the law.
Specifically, he mentioned the Nebraska Legislature and even
expressed a desire to retire from national politics the next
year in order to devote most of his time to the great fight that

(04:23):
lay ahead. When, indeed, his avid
supporters virtually compelled him to seek reelection to the
Senate, Norris grieved over his inability, as he put it, Quote.
To follow my own inclinations inthis matter.
End Quote. Often frustrated and despondent
in these conservative years, thesensitive liberal resolved that
before he died he would perform one outstanding service for his

(04:47):
home state. Quote.
The replacement of the unwieldy and inefficient 2 chamber
legislature by 1 compact body. End Quote.
With Norris, the idea of a unicameral legislature became a
passion, albeit a latent passion, through the 1920s.
Too busy with his determined battle to save Muscle Shoals, he
scarcely had time for this, his other pet project.

(05:09):
Strangely enough, the history ofthese two significant aspects of
his career had striking parallels.
In principle, they reflected different features of the
progressive ideal. Moreover, just as Norris learned
early in the Muscle Shoals imbroglio, the fruition of his
dream for the Tennessee River Valley lay in the future, so he

(05:30):
came to understand that the realization of his unicameral
reform awaited a resurgence of liberalism.
In the meantime, he sought to keep his idea alive by writing
newspaper and magazine articles emphasizing the advantages of A1
House system over the anachronism of the bicameral
system. Norris's first literary endeavor

(05:52):
in behalf of his reform, entitled A Model State
Legislature, appeared in 1923 inthe New York Times.
This article contained all of the basic arguments that were
used over and over again right up to the successful conclusion
of his campaign in 1934. Taking as his point of departure
the progressive notion of re establishing political

(06:14):
responsibility among public servants, Norris candidly put
forth the case for the unicameral legislature,
proposing a small lawmaking bodyelected on nonpartisan basis in
place of the large, unwieldy, often violently partisan
conventional arrangement. The Nebraska senator, in typical
fashion, began his discussion byciting criticism after criticism

(06:38):
of the existing framework. He concentrated his attack upon
the quote undemocratic conference committee, End Quote,
which meets when bills passed inboth houses vary in content.
This process, Norris maintained,grants arbitrary power to the
few men who are chosen to put legislation in final form.
Making matters worse, he added, is the fact that this third

(07:02):
house, as he would call it, often meeting behind closed
doors, is a haven for lobbyists,who usually need to influence
only two or three legislators. When finally the conference
report reaches the separate houses, Norris went on,
individual lawmakers find it difficult to express opposition
to any specific provision that the bill in revised form

(07:23):
contains. In turn, the conscientious
citizen cannot properly evaluatethe efforts of his
representative. The end result is a travesty of
the democratic process. The unicameral legislature in
small size, Norris continued, would be free of the evils
characteristic of the two House system.
Conceding that in theory a larger body is supposed to be

(07:46):
more representative of a citizenry, he argued that in
practice each man loses his individual rights.
Committees must determine procedure by special rules,
there is a deprivation of the right to offer amendments and
there is less time for deliberation.
Writing much later on the same thought, Norris asserted that

(08:06):
professional lobbyists had told him that the easiest situation
to handle was the large legislative body.
Here only two or three leaders needed to be controlled, while
in a small body, quote, every member has all the rights of
every other member and is much more difficult to control.
End Quote. The Senators final proposal, and

(08:28):
the one nearest his heart, was the election of representatives
on a nonpartisan basis. Since his later years as a
congressman, Norris had himself been free of blind party loyalty
to him. The Republican Party was subject
to the same influences that dominated the Democratic Party.
Both, quote, were machines controlled, and the Democratic

(08:49):
and Republican machines the Muscle Shoals fight had taught
him worked in perfect harmony ofbrotherly love.
End Quote, the removal of this stumbling block to good
legislation, nor thus attached to his unicameral reform.
Hollow as these proposals may have sounded in the Harding
Coolidge era, the unicameral idea was an old one.

(09:09):
In America. The first constitutions of
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Georgia provided for single
house legislatures, although in each case a board of censors was
established and in effect operated as a second house.
Of these states, Vermont kept the arrangement the longest,
until 1836. Approximately 70 years elapsed

(09:31):
before the idea again took hold.When, during the Progressive
period, governors of six states recommended to constitutional
conventions revision along unicameral lines.
In New York and Ohio, the reformwas considered but not acted
upon. In Oregon, Oklahoma, and
Arizona, the people themselves turned down efforts to institute

(09:51):
the single deliberative assembly.
A joint legislative committee ofNebraska studied the possibility
and filed a favorable report. But little was done until six
years later, in 1919, when a motion before the Constitutional
convention providing for a unicameral body was defeated by
a close vote. While one feature of the

(10:12):
composite Norris plan had thus become familiar to Nebraskans,
the foundation had been laid foranother Back in 19 O 9
partisanship had been abolished in elections all the way from
local boards of education to state Superintendent, and in the
judiciary from the lower courts to the supreme bench.
Yet these moves were insignificant next to Norris's

(10:34):
proposed governmental change, and the very radical nature of
his program contributed to the 10 year delay in his campaign.
There were, of course, compelling reasons why, to
Senator Norris and to others, 1933 loomed as a Goodyear in
which to launch the fight in Nebraska for the unicameral
legislature. The Depression itself bred much

(10:57):
discontent with existing institutions, and once again
Americans appeared willing to implement new and challenging
ideas. Furthermore, the Democratic
landslide of 1932 brought in itswake a Nebraska Legislature
sporting inexperienced lawmakerswhose first efforts proved
unimaginative and fruitless. Finally, there was Senator

(11:19):
Norris himself, now a towering figure not only in his home
state but across the nation as well.
The quote fighting liberals and quote, brilliant record in
Washington and the promise of further achievement gave him a
measure of prestige and influence which few politicians
can boast in their lifetime. Indeed, by the time the

(11:39):
unicameral campaign was begun, Norris had lived down his
reputation as a member of that, quote, little group of willful
men and quote who attempted to sabotage President Wilson's
preparedness efforts in 1917. People had come to know the
Senator as a man who had laboredincessantly for the farm block
throughout the 1920s and had been remarkably successful in

(12:03):
securing a National Labor Anti injunction law in 1930,
acceptance by Congress of his proposed lame duck amendment to
the United States Constitution in 1932, and finally enactment
of his Tennessee River Valley Plan in 1933.
He was rapidly on his way to gaining the reputation later
described by the once critical New York Times as, quote, a

(12:26):
contemporary founding father, always remote from the scramble
of politics, a thinker and a philosopher.
End Quote. Busy as Norris was in Washington
in 1933, he never lost sight of his earlier declarations on the
unicameral experiment. To be sure, he was no longer
interested in retiring from national politics to devote all

(12:48):
of his time to the One House campaign, but he was willing
more than ever to plunge himselfinto such a movement to a
friend. He optimistically announced that
his reform quote could be brought about if we would
organize and make the right kindof fight.
End Quote. Hard on the heels of this and
other similar statements came letters of support and

(13:09):
encouragement from people all across Nebraska.
So enthusiastic was this response that Colonel John G
Maher, long one of the Senators,close associates and a pillar in
the single House movement, called a public meeting in
Lincoln on February 22nd, 1934. Appropriately, Norris was
invited to deliver the main address in behalf of the

(13:30):
unicameral reform and the campaign was underway.
Senator Norris took full advantage of his appearance in
Lincoln, NE to tie his reform proposal to his long held
progressive philosophy. He traced the origins of the
democratic ideal in America, asserting that the history of
our civilization has been basically a contest between the

(13:50):
rulers and the ruled. The Constitution, he insisted,
was designed in accordance with the theory that the quote common
people were not sufficiently civilized and sufficiently
educated to govern themselves. End Quote.
But, he continued, history has seen inevitable advances towards
the achievement of democracy. Already we have repudiated at

(14:13):
least one of the old conservative features, the
election of senators by state legislatures.
Others will follow in due course, Norris added, implying
that the success of his unicameral plan in Nebraska
would spur other states to adoptit.
Following Norris's impassioned speech, the enthusiastic throng
of 800 adopted a resolution commissioning Colonel Maher to

(14:36):
organize a committee to circulate petitions in
compliance with the state constitution.
Since preliminary details had been ironed out well before the
Lincoln meeting, it was announced that 57,000 signatures
were necessary to submit the question to a referendum in the
November elections. Already a careful observer,

(14:56):
confident in the Nebraska Senators widespread influence,
had predicted that this task would be an easy one for such a
quote organized as the friends of Norris are prepared to
perfect End Quote. Yet the early stages of the
unicameral campaign transpired less smoothly than was
anticipated. The Model Legislative Committee

(15:16):
itself ran into difficulty when it attempted to revise the
Senators tentative proposals. Individual members were
especially reluctant to include the non partisanship feature,
which, although acceptable in principle, would, they believed,
endanger the rest of the amendment.
Trouble had been foreshadowed when Arthur F Mullen, the leader

(15:38):
of the Democratic Party in Nebraska, was refused to
compromise by Norris in which the controversial provision was
to be dropped in return for Democratic support.
Furthermore, the determined Norris refused even to listen to
another committee criticism thatthe election of a governor on a
partisan ballot would lead to complications.
Only on one matter, the number of representatives in the new

(16:01):
single House deliberative body, would this senator compromise.
Here the issue was pure and simple.
Nebraska farmers, long the core of Norris's strength, apparently
felt that fewer legislators would result in city domination
of the state government, a condition which they naturally
feared and abhorred. So he capitulated and acquiesced

(16:24):
in an increase of membership from 30 to 50 representatives.
The final number would be determined by the 19351937
Legislature. With these difficulties thus
ironed out, the committee drew up a set of proposals calling
for a unicameral body with members elected in single
districts on a nonpartisan basis, the right of a lawmaker

(16:47):
to introduce bills at any time during the legislative session,
the only reservation being that no bill could become a law in
less than 5 days. And finally, salaries of $1774
per member for two years work together with transportation
expenses to Lincoln once each session.

(17:07):
In essence, the details of the unicameral plan followed closely
Norris's general principles. In the meantime, petitioners
busied themselves throughout thestate in an effort to obtain the
required number of signatures. Here are two obstacles were met.
The chief difficulty stemmed from a provision from the State
Constitution stipulating that each petition could offer only

(17:31):
20 names and had to contain an affidavit verifying that the
circulator personally witnessed every signature.
Furthermore, the names had to bedistributed among at least 62 of
the 93 counties, burdening the unicameral organization with the
task of finding petitioners in each locality.
At first, volunteers were not readily available, and the

(17:54):
committee sought funds with which to pay circulators.
This effort proved futile, however, as the proposed reform
engendered little enthusiasm among substantial citizens, so
desperate did the situation become.
At one point, the campaign chairman, Donald Gallagher,
wrote discouragingly to Senator Norris in Washington, suggesting

(18:17):
the possibility of postponing that campaign for two years.
Alarmed over the drop in morale of his group, Norris generously
enclosed a personal check to Gallagher for $1000 to help
defray mounting expenses. Fortunately, as the unicameral
movement gained impetus, more and more volunteers poured into

(18:37):
the Lincoln headquarters, and little additional money was
needed. The final and most crucial stage
of the unicameral campaign came in the fall of 1934, with
Senator Norris himself assuming the greatest burden.
Already in September his secretary had set up quarters in
the state Capitol, and he followed along the next month.

(18:59):
Norris knew that the task ahead was still a difficult one, for
in spite of the work of his cohorts, the amendment had not
had the advantage of being proposed in any recent session
of the Legislature, nor recommended in a gubernatorial
message, or, for that matter, even intelligently discussed in
the state press. Yet the determined senator

(19:21):
despaired not and instead plunged wholeheartedly into the
campaign. Senator Norris commenced his
whirlwind state tour in Hastingswhere he humbly confessed his
irritation at statements. In punging his motives, people
often asked him and he admitted,quote, what does Norris get out
of it? End Quote.

(19:41):
To him, public service, not personal gain, had always been
his chief inspiration. In subsequent speeches, he used
all of the arguments at his disposal against the
inefficiency and corruptibility of the traditional two House
system. Norris often cited the case in
the Nebraska Legislature, where a majority favored a bill

(20:02):
permitting certain municipal plants to extend lines outside
of the municipality, just as private utilities had done.
However, as a result of clever manipulation of the conference
committee, the private interestsnot only blocked the legislation
but caused so much confusion in the process that the electorate
remained totally ignorant of theissues at stake.

(20:25):
When the air finally cleared, headded, a referendum was held and
the measure received overwhelming popular support.
To this illustration, Norris usually appended equip directed
at his opponent's quote in everytwo House legislature.
If we post the checks and the balances after the end of the
session, we shall find that the politicians have the checks and

(20:47):
the interests have the balances.End Quote.
Needless to say, Norris's opposition, composed largely of
newspaper editors, the leaders of both parties, and a vast
majority of present and past legislators, was not silent.
They literally cringed at such an irreverent attack upon the

(21:08):
time honored system and cited the great authorities Alexander
Hamilton, James Kent, and JosephStory, whose arguments in behalf
of the bicameral legislature rested on a defense of property
rights. As if to modernize this old
version, several anti unicameralspeakers and writers emphasize
the importance of maintaining 2 houses for checking sectional

(21:31):
interests. It is still true, wrote Walter
Dodd quote, that one house does check the other to some extent.
End Quote. Anticipating this objection,
Norris could only reply in termsof his own experience as a
member of the House of Representatives and the United
States Senate. Quote With very few exceptions,
it makes little difference whether a representative lives

(21:53):
in a rural community or whether he comes from the heart of a
large city. End Quote.
He himself had always been sympathetic to labor's plight,
though his particular community and state were essentially
rural. Norris did concede, however,
that states with large urban centers should strive to attain
sectional balance in an experimental unicameral

(22:14):
legislature. As the unicameral campaign drew
to a close in early November, the Norris organization was
confident that their reform would, quote, receive a larger
vote than people expected. End Quote.
Certainly its fate captured national attention in the period
immediately before and shortly after its enactment.
Colliers had early come out strongly against the idea on the

(22:37):
ground that A1 House legislatureof so few members quote is a
plea for authority more centralized.
End Quote. The representative Government
Association concurred and in a pamphlet added that the proposed
UN American change would break down the hold which the people
have over their representatives.Even the Christian Science

(22:58):
Monitor cited the desire for, quote, centralization and
authority. End Quote.
But look at the proposal in a more favorable light.
While the Saturday Evening Post insisted that there was no
justification whatsoever for a state bicameral legislature,
originally, they added, senatorsquote were expected to be of

(23:18):
superior wealth and social standing, End Quote, and
property qualifications were required of electors of the
upper house. In recent times, however, aside
from the manner and size of apportionment, the only
difference in the two houses hasbeen the senators serve longer
terms. Finally, the American
Legislators Association conducted a survey of segments

(23:40):
of the population and concluded that 59% of those polled opposed
the Nebraska experiment. Significantly, state and federal
legislators rejected it by a vote of approximately 3 to one,
while professors of government and others engaged in research
along these lines favored it 4 to one.

(24:00):
The results of the Nebraska Unicameral campaign in November
1934 was indeed decisive. The proposed amendment carried
the state by a plurality of over90,000 votes.
Only 8 counties out of 93, Norris happily noted, turned
down his idea. For him, the triumph was a rich

(24:22):
reward, following a more vigorous campaign than he had
ever waged as a candidate for anelected office.
But in his customarily modest way, the senator took little
personal credit for the victory,applauding instead the stellar
efforts of his organization and the enlightened state of the
Nebraska electorate. It was another two years before

(24:43):
the unicameral reform actually went in effect in Nebraska, and
in the meantime Norris returned to his desk in Washington.
His work, however, was not forgotten when, in January 1937,
the One House legislature commenced its deliberations.
The aging senator was invited todeliver the first message.
Proudly standing before his peers, he took this momentous

(25:06):
occasion to appeal once again inbehalf of the progressive cause.
Sensitive to the role that unicameralism might play in
improving democratic government,Norris asked for the cooperation
of all and warned that lobbyists, politicians, quote,
and every representative of greed and monopoly are hoping
and praying that your work will be a failure.

(25:29):
End Quote. Upon completing his remarks,
Norris received a standing ovation and was escorted from
the platform by several prominent Nebraska leaders.
Undoubtedly, Senator Norris's victory in his home state in
1934 resulted from a renewed spirit of liberalism and
experimentalism which swept across the nation in the

(25:50):
Depression years, together with his own personal dedication and
determination. The gentle night of American
progressive ideals, as PresidentFranklin D Roosevelt so aptly
called him, had again succeeded in achieving a specific
objective within a tradition of reform which had guided his
political career for over a quarter of a century.

(26:13):
If today the Norris formula for the perfection of representative
government and the realization of the democratic ideals appears
too simple and perhaps somewhat naive, it is because simplicity
and perhaps even naivete were characteristics of the
progressive impulse as it sprangout of the 19th century America.
George Norris was a product of that America and her inherent

(26:37):
belief in the perfectibility of human institutions.
Thank you for listening to the Nebraska History Podcast.
To learn more about Nebraska History Magazine, to listen to
more podcasts, or to support ourpodcast by becoming a member of
the Nebraska State Historical Society, go to
history.nebraska.gov/podcast. And don't forget to subscribe to

(26:58):
the podcast and get notified when we release new episodes on
your favorite podcast platform. Until next time, I'm Chris
Goforth.