Should the 17th Amendment Be Repealed?

“The current system has given us six-year politicians more focused on national ambitions and the institution of the U.S. Senate than on the states they serve,” Self said in a statement. “Our Founding Fathers designed the Senate to protect state sovereignty and act as a check on federal overreach. If senators are supposed to represent their states, then the states should choose them.” He argued that repealing the amendment would restore the “constitutional balance and make the Senate more accountable to the people of Texas and every other state in the union.”

Paul Gosar (R-AZ), co-author of the resolution, wrote in a statement that repealing the amendment would “restore an important constitutional check, strengthen state sovereignty, and help bring accountability back to an institution that too often obstructs meaningful reform.”  Furthermore, “The Founders intended the Senate to be the voice of the states in our federal system, not a perpetual roadblock to the will of the American people.”

Co-author Clay Higgins (R-LA) wrote: “The 17th Amendment is arguably the most injurious amendment in history. The Founders knew what they were doing, and We the People should restore the original Constitutional process for election of US Senators.”

The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and  “shifted the election of senators from state legislatures to direct popular voice,” Self’s press release explained. “For more than 124 years prior, senators were chosen by elected state representatives, creating a direct chain of accountability between the State and sovereign states they were meant to represent.”

The 17th Amendment“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.”

The Founders intentionally created two different chambers of Congress: The House of Representative that represents the people, and the Senate that represents the states. They believed this created balance because the House asks: “what do the people want,” and the Senate asks: “what do the states want.”

This gave state governments a direct voice in Washington. If Congress tried to pass laws that hurt state authority, senators had a strong incentive to resist because they answered to their state legislatures, not directly to voters.

However, by the late 1800s, people started to believe the old system had serious problems. One main issue was when state legislature became deadlocked because they couldn’t agree on a senator, leaving Senate seats vacant for months. In one example from the 1890s, the Delaware General Assembly couldn’t agree on a candidate. They voted 217 times over 114 days, leaving the Senate seat vacant for two years, which meant the state had only one senator and was without full representation equal to the other states.

Others argued that wealthy businessmen and political influencers could bribe state legislators to elect certain senators. In the late 19th century, critics referred to the US Senate as the “Millionaires’ Club,” according to the National Archives because many senators were wealthy industrialists, railroad executives, bankers, and mining owners. Money talked and apparently helped people get elected.

One of the most famous examples was William Lorimer of Illinois, who was elected to the Senate by the state legislature in 1909. In 1910, the Chicago Tribune reported that several state legislators had been bribed to vote for him. Charles A. White testified that he had been paid $1,000, worth $35,000-$40,000, today, for his vote. Lorimer was removed from office in 1912 after an investigation concluding that corrupt methods and practices were used to get him elected. Many historians agree that this was what began the movement toward the 17th Amendment.

Constitutional scholar Todd Zywicki argued that corruption in legislative Senate elections was less widespread than many progressive reformers claimed. From 1789 to 1909, around 1,180 senators were elected by state legislatures and only about ten elections were formally contested because of alleged corruption. Only about seven cases resulted in proven corruption.

Corruption and politics seem to go hand-in-hand like peanut butter and jelly, though, and the 17th Amendment has its own problems. For one thing, candidates now spend more time – and money – campaigning for election. Critics argue that today’s system creates incentives for senators to become dependent on wealthy donors, political action committees (PACs), and outside groups, which they say may give large donors greater access to elected officials than ordinary citizens.

OpenSecrets pointed out that Senate races cost tens of millions of dollars and competitive races can exceed $100 million in total spending when outside groups are included. Fundraising often starts years before Election Day now. Zywicki argued that before the 17th Amendment, senators were mostly accountable to state governments, but now they are much more dependent on national political parties, media attention, and campaign fundraising.

Many scholars argue the 17th Amendment did not eliminate concerns about undue influence in Senate elections, but instead changed where that influence was most likely to occur. Whether that represents an improvement remains a matter of constitutional and political debate.

Still, the joint resolution to repel the 17th Amendment has a long way to go. It will require a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate and must then be approved by three-fourths of the states.

Dig Deeper Into the Themes Discussed in This Article!

Liberty Vault: The Constitution of the United States