A common question regarding unicameralism was how to preserve checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. Norris argued there would be checks and balances without a second house. The Supreme Court and the governor would rule on or veto measures deemed improper, he said. More importantly, the people would serve as a check upon the possible abuse of power by their elected officials with the right to vote and petition, Norris said. In a one-house legislature, Norris said, no actions could be concealed as was commonly done in the conference committee of bicameral legislatures.
Conference committees resolve differences when bills passed in both houses vary in content.
In Nebraska, the appointed six-member committee met in secret and members' votes were not public record. Norris said these committees had too much power and could be influenced easily by lobbyists. Once a bill came out of the conference committee, it could not be changed, only approved or rejected. If rejected, another committee had to be formed to work out the disagreements or the measure failed. Today in Nebraska, lawmakers may propose amendments and debate them outside of committee on the chamber floor.