It’s been said that good intentions never go unpunished, and that’s the case with legislation that would make it easier for local governments to consolidate and become more efficient. The irony is that it’s hard to go anywhere in Iowa without hearing the argument that Iowa has too much government, yet it’s bureaucracy that is muddying the bill that could potentially reduce it.

On its face, the legislation seemed so simple, so non-controversial. It would correct some technical problems in the current law on consolidations, allow affected citizens to decide if they want partisan or non-partisan elections for officials of combined governments and allow referendums on such measures to be held during off-year November municipal elections as well as general elections. It contained no mandates; it merely allowed people to decide issues that affect their local governments.

Yet it’s created a firestorm on Capitol Hill that its backers couldn’t have predicted. Some rural lawmakers are arguing that voters in unincorporated areas should have the same veto power over referendums on consolidations as their urban counterparts. That’s a “killer amendment” designed, it would appear, to prevent consolidated governance proposals, such as the one being studied for Polk County and Des Moines, to move forward. Both the current law and the changes proposed to it require only that such proposals carry countywide.

Rep. James Van Engelenhoven, a Pella Republican who is one of the sponsors of that amendment, argues that voters in unincorporated areas are at a disadvantage because they are fewer in number than their urban counterparts and need an equalizing force. But legislation that would have the effect of giving disproportionate weight to their votes isn’t the answer in a democracy.

The current law requires partisan elections, but the proposed changes backed by a majority of the group studying the consolidation of city and county governments would leave that matter up to the voters. Opposition to that provision is largely self-serving, protecting not the right of citizens to decide what works best in their local jurisdictions, but the political party with the most power.

The fight over the consolidated governance bill is a classic collision of urban and rural interests. The tragedy is that the benefits of more efficient, streamlined government that occur when local jurisdictions reinvent themselves have been lost in the debate.