On August 23, 1999, the Wall Street Journal ran the following editorial.

Governor Jesse Ventura has been barnstorming Minnesota to gather support for his idea to eliminate one house of the legislature. We admire the governor's energy level but wonder why he doesn't instead emphasize a real reform that's already passed one of the two existing houses of his legislature: making Minnesota the 25th state to give voters the right to change laws directly through the initiative process.

Supporters of a one-house legislature would make the remaining unicameral chamber elected on a non-partisan basis. They say this would not only save money but reduce the power of conference committees that now resolve differences between the two houses. They also believe the new legislators would be likely then to pass other reforms such as term limits, the right of initiative and campaign finance reform.

But the experience of Nebraska, which has had a one-house legislature since the 1930s, is not promising. Nebraska's non-partisan legislators aren't accountable to a political party and are more, not less, susceptible to special interests. "The big boys here only have to 'pay off' one body to block the laws they don't like or pass the laws they do," one former Nebraska state senator told us. Nebraska's legislators have also been openly hostile to political reforms such as term limits and the state's initiative process.

Minnesota's citizens are divided on the value of a one-house legislature, but over 70% of them support direct democracy. Indeed, earlier this year the GOP-controlled Minnesota House voted 77 to 51 in favor of a constitutional amendment creating a right of initiative. The Democratic Senate has yet to take up the bill.

It's no surprise that elected officials all over the country are trying to rein in initiatives. Last year, Alaska limited how much signature gatherers could be paid. Oregon legislators want to raise the number of signatures for ballot status by 50%. That would allow powerful special interests to still promote their ideas but stunt grass-roots volunteer efforts. But some enlightened legislators appreciate the over-the-shoulder monitoring of the initiative process. "Some of us forget the late-night sessions here produce some pretty messy measures." says Oregon state Senator Ted Ferrioli.

In Denver, the city council has put a proposal on the November ballot to increase the number of signatures required for local initiatives by a whopping 600%. Councilwoman Joyce Foster claims "there are a lot of not-so-thoughtful initiatives out there," ignoring the fact that courts can throw out those that are defective or unconstitutional.

Elected officials too often wrongly view the initiative process as an assault on their power. Rather it is a check and balance on incumbents who make themselves invulnerable to challengers and then bottle up ideas whether tort reform from the right or smoking curbs from the left.

As a self-styled populist, it would make more sense for Governor Ventura to body slam legislators to empower the people through the initiative process than for him to spend his time trying to rearrange legislative chairs in the state capitol.