THE 17TH AMENDMENT
The Basic Facts
Original Constitution, Article I Section 3:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the
Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
From the People’s Party Platform, 1896:
We demand the election of President, Vice-President, and United States Senators by a direct vote of
the people...
From Amendment XVII (ratified by all states except Utah BTW):
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.
Opposing Viewpoints on the Wisdom of Amendment XVII
Repeal the 17th Amendment!
The surprising Republican movement to strip voters of their right to elect senators
America, we’re told from a young age, is all about democracy, and democracy is all about choosing whom you want to be your representatives and holding them
accountable. This seems like an entirely uncontroversial idea, but a surprising number of Republican politicians would like to do away with this right, and return the
country to an older era when Americans didn’t directly elect their representatives in Washington.
Until 1913 and the ratification of the 17th Amendment, Americans didn’t actually elect senators, state legislators did. The change seems unquestionably positive, but
Rep. Jeff Flake, the front-runner for the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in Arizona, said this week when asked about repeal,”I think it’s better as it reinforces
the notion of federalism to have senators appointed by state legislatures.” After he caught some flak for the remark, a spokesperson clarified, “As a supporter of the
principle of federalism, Jeff Flake believes that the Framers of the Constitution gave state legislatures the power to appoint U.S. senators for good reason. However,
he has not called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.”
Rep. Todd Akin, who recently won a Republican Senate primary in Missouri and will face off against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, said in May, “I have a very
serious concern about erosion of states’ rights, and reversing this [17th Amendment] might pull that balance back.” He said he was “leaning” in favor of repeal. Rep.
Pete Hoekstra, the Republican nominee in Michigan running against Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, said recently when asked about repealing the amendment,
“I think that would be a positive thing.” “The direct election of U.S. senators made the U.S. Senate act and behave like the House of Representatives. The end result
has led to an erosion of states’ rights,” Hoekstra said in November.
Richard Mourdock, who recently ousted longtime Republican Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar in a GOP primary, agrees. “You know the issue of the 17th Amendment is so
troubling to me … The Senate was there to represent the states. In other words, the government of the states,” Mourdock said in May.
ALEX SEITZ-WALD
2012, SALON.COM
Tea Party Candidates Want to Revoke 17th Amendment, Stop Public from Electing Senators
If David Dewhurst and Sen. Dan Patrick (R-Houston) have their way, the people will no longer be able to elect their own senators. Rather, that privilege will be
reserved for state politicians — 17th Amendment be darned. This was a major talking point at a debate Thursday between both candidates for Texas lieutenant
governor.
Allowing state politicians to choose the nation’s senators would work out in the favor of conservative politicians, who have maintained a stronghold in some state
legislatures due to gerrymandering, or drawing biased voting districts. Gerrymandering explains why, despite a nationwide Democratic majority, a disproportionate
number of Republicans are voted into local office. If the 17th Amendment were abolished, these same politicians would vote for senators, enabling them to achieve a
Washington majority as well.
Said Dewhurst: “Right now many members of Congress, United States senators and United States congressmen don’t have a feeling for what the states need. They
feel separated. Believe me, with the absence — a reversal of the 17th Amendment — would make all of our United States senators listening daily to the heartbeat of
the legislatures and not be passing the laws that cost all of us.”
Patrick mirrored the sentiment: “In the race for Lt. Governor, I was the one who began the conversation about this critically important issue. I unequivocally support
the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the restoration of our Founders’ original intent to have the state legislatures select our United States senators.”
The 17th Amendment states, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years.”
The amendment was ratified in 1913. Before then, each state legislature would elect two senators. However, the system was easily rigged toward special interests,
and in some cases deadlock plagued the process. In part, the 17th Amendment was passed to abolish the “millionaire’s club” born from the old system.
Other politicians that support the eradication of the 17th Amendment include Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Texas Governor Rick Perry.
Cornell Law School, OurDocuments.gov
Nina Kate, Mon, November 18, 2013
The Right's Weird Campaign to End Elections for Senators
…In an appearance this month at a Texas law school, [Supreme Court] Justice Scalia said that he favored changing Senate selection back to how it was done before
the 17th Amendment was enacted. "We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states' rights throughout the rest
of the 20th century."
Mike Lee, Utah's new Republican Senator, has called passing the 17th Amendment a "mistake," and the unsuccessful Republican nominee for Senate in Colorado,
Ken Buck, was for repeal before he was against it. Lee and Buck were both Tea Party–endorsed, and for many Tea Party activists, opposition to the 17th
Amendment is an important article of faith.
In their view, the framers of the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing, and we should not deviate from the plan. The problem is that, while there's no
denying the framers produced one of mankind's greatest creations, an immensely subtle and enduring blueprint for governing a free land, they also got some things
terribly wrong — many of them around the subject of who could cast a ballot. The framers wrote slavery into the Constitution and prohibited slaves from voting. They
also denied women the vote. And they allowed the states to disenfranchise poor people by imposing property qualifications.
Legislative selection of Senators was one more notable item on this list of mistakes — another way in which the founders were unwilling to trust the American people
as a whole to choose their government. The founders' motives were partly to increase states' rights, as Justice Scalia said, and partly pure elitism. Letting legislators
do the choosing, James Madison argued in "Federalist No. 62," had the virtue of "favoring a select appointment."
The main driving force for reforming that provision, starting in the mid-1800s, was the widespread perception that the selection of Senators was rife with corruption
and special-interest politics. The case of Montana's William A. Clark caused particular outrage. In 1900, his Senate colleagues determined that he had given over
$100,000 in bribes to members of the legislature that chose him. He quit when his colleagues were on the verge of voting him out.
In the progressive era, the campaign to amend the Constitution gained force. The reformers argued that direct election would clean up a corrupt institution and make
it more responsive to the people. When defenders of the status quo insisted the people could not be trusted to choose their Senators, William Jennings Bryan, the
populist icon, responded that "if the people of the United States have enough intelligence to choose their representatives in the State legislature . . . they have
enough intelligence to choose the men who shall represent them in the United States Senate." In 1913, the 17th Amendment was adopted by a substantial margin.
The best argument against repeal can be seen any day of the week in any state capital — just take a close look at how state legislatures work. Special interests and
well-heeled lobbyists call the shots, and state legislators are notorious for not seeing the bigger picture. In 2007, when New York's legislature had to choose a new
state comptroller, after the incumbent was forced to resign, they made clear they would only select a fellow legislator. The legislature's unwillingness to seriously
consider an outsider suggests just how undemocratic legislative selection would likely be.
As flawed as elections seem today — and as influenced as they are by special interests — legislative selection would be far worse. If repeal of the 17th Amendment
would hand the Senate over to the moneyed interests and insiders, then why does anyone support it? Quite possibly for that very reason, special interests have been
on a fierce campaign to increase the already outsized role they play in politics and government.
There has only been one pesky problem: the voters. Wealthy candidates, and candidates backed by wealthy people, often win, as Florida Governor-elect Rick Scott
proved this year — but they also often don't. Republican (and former eBay head) Meg Whitman spent over $160 million, more than $140 million of it her own money,
running for governor of California — and lost. McMahon spent considerably more in relative terms, about $97 a vote — far more than her Democratic opponent —
and also lost.
Repealing the 17th Amendment would prevent the little people — in other words, the voters — from having their say. Which is exactly why it is so important to keep it.
Adam Cohen, Time Magazine, 2010
Leave the Seventeenth Amendment Alone
…As nutty as this sounds, the "Repeal The 17th" initiative really is important to Tea Parties. Marc Ambinder recently noted that the position has "become a part of the
Tea Party orthodoxy."
But as with much of the "movement's" agenda, Republican candidates are struggling with the bizarre demands. The GOP is desperate for right-wing support, and
therefore willing to consider endorsing a repeal of the constitutional amendment, but notice how often candidates backtrack, fearing that voters would think the idea is
a little too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
It reinforces one of the year's most obvious conundrums for the Republican Party -- endorse extreme ideas and earn Tea Party support, or appeal to the American
mainstream. For Dems, it also offers an opportunity to remind voters just how nutty the GOP activist base has become: "They're so far gone, the Republican base
wants to take away your right to elect your own senators."
Steve Benen , Washington Monthly, 2010