So which state really is "the worst of the worst"?

Illinois attorney C. E. Petit sent me the following post after reading my posting below on the New York and California legislatures:

Hey, I sort of resent the implication of your piece this morning onBalkinization that Illinois isn't even in the running for the most ineptstate government. We have a proud tradition here of extolling, not just tolerating, our political corruption! If you think it's tough to lose a legislative race in the New York statesenate, try losing one in the Illinois State Senate if you've got party-leadership support. And if you think the chamber leadership in NewYork has a stranglehold on things, remember: Here, the daughter of the Speaker of the state House is the state's elected Attorney General and a leading candidate for governor in the 2010 election to replace Rod Blagojevich (and the creature who lives on top of his head).

I certainly don't want to be "unfair" to Illinois, which seems to have a habit of electing governors who turn into felons, not to mention the bizarre appointment of Sen. Burris this past January (though I continue adamantly to oppose the proposed Feingold amendment to require popular election of any and all senators who are filling vacancies). I am genuinely curious, though, how much of the Illinois situation is the result of an arguably defective state constitution--and whether there is any pressure buildling up for a rewriting of the document--and how much is attriutable, as Mr. Petit suggests, to the hammerlock enjoyed by party leaders, which may or may not be correctible through structural reform of the constitution. And at least the Speaker's daughter will have to run for election, unlike Lisa Murkowski, who got to the US Senate from Alaska, by appointment of her father, the Governor. Nebraska's unicameral legislature is, I believe, notionally "non-partisan," but I'm also quite confident that candidates are readily identifiable as linked with the Democratic or Republican Party (as when they run for the national House or Senate). I'd appreciate any input from Nebraska readers as to their perception of their state government.

Certainly partisans of other states might want to be heard. Texas is unusually dreadful in failing to have anything close to a professional legislature--it meets for 140 or so days ever two years, and legislators are paid $7200/year. Moreover, the governor, who is otherwise fairly weak (a fact that Al Gore never was able to bring to the voters' attention in 2000) has the powers of a constitutional dictator with regard to the ability to veto any and all legislation upon the departure of the legislature, which has no opportunity to override these vetoes. And, of course, we elect every single judge, for four- or six-year terms, in partisan elections. (I confess to having mixed feelings about the ostensible merits of an appointed judiciary over an elected one. There is certainly no reason to believe that the appointment process of federal judges is less "political" than are elections; it's simply that the politics of the latter are far more transparent.) And, of course, Louisiana almost always provides examples to warm any cynic's heart. Again, though, I'm primarily interested in defects that can, as in Texas, New York, and California, be directly traced to hard-wired aspects of the state constitutions.