Mankato Free Press editorial

In the effort to trim government spending, there are many who would trim government itself. In Minnesota, it is not enough for some that Republicans trim the number of legislative committees as a cost-saving measure. Bills have been circulated that would cut the state’s number of lawmakers.

The idea is not new, but today it might seem more reasonable in light of economic conditions. Why not make do with fewer state legislators in this age of budget deficits? Besides that, fewer legislators means a less cumbersome state government altogether, right?

A longer look, however, reveals drawbacks to the idea. Bottom line: It’s not about savings; it’s about representation. Figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau show the disparity between legislators and the number of people they represent has grown across the country. There are now, for instance, 80 members of the California Assembly and each one represents about 46,000 constituents. How easy is it for California’s elected representatives to stay in touch with their people with numbers like that?

In Minnesota, there are now more than 30,000 people for every House member and about 80,000 for every member of the Senate. The gulf isn’t as great as exists for the biggest states, such as California, New York, Texas and Florida, but it’s a greater disparity than in most other Midwestern states.

Every state bears the responsibility of establishing its own number of representatives, but those who would apply these kinds of austerity measures to themselves run risks. It’s obviously difficult to maintain close contact with constituents when the ratios are high and getting higher. Just as easy as it is to question why New Hampshire needs 400 members of its House (a 1-to-12,000 ratio), one can question the system Nevada employs, with a part-time legislature where lawmakers have no district office or staff. Lawmakers in Nevada, which is undergoing significant population growth, are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain relationships with their residents, often leading to exasperating results.

In today’s environment, adding representatives, or adding more funding for office and staff is out of the question in many states. More likely, states increasingly will be asked to trim their own governments as a way to set an example for the public at large.

Certainly, there are savings to be had there. But the savings also represent a threat to quality of access citizens expect and should enjoy.