What Has Populism Done for You Lately?

The Case for Repealing the 17th Amendment

By: Chad Jimenez(Claremont Institute)

At the turn of the century, the Populists and Progressives passed many pieces of revolutionary legislation, one of which was the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the direct election of senators by the people, bypassing the Constitutional provision that the state legislatures elect senators. On the surface, the 17th amendment seems like an excellent idea. Instead of having greedy politicians elect senators, the people would be able to hold their senators directly accountable. In our democratic society, it only makes sense that the people get to participate in the democratic process more often. The 17th amendment, however, was a bad idea and needs repealing. Indirect election of senators was essential for the practice of federalism, which is one of the basic principles of our Constitution, and one that we are in danger of losing.

Ninety-two years after its ratification, many people, including former Georgia Senator Zell Miller, are noticing the damage the 17th amendment has done. First, it has destroyed many of the essential purposes of bicameralism. These purposes include the prevention of poor legislation and the protection of states from federal intrusion on their power. The point of having a Senate is that no law can be passed without a majority of the representatives of the states. The Senate makes it difficult for the federal government to assume too much power because the senators who represent the interests of their states vote to protect their states' rights. Direct election abolished the idea that senators are supposed to represent their state governments.

Another problem with the direct election of senators is that it made both houses of the legislature subject to direct popular pressure. Before the 17th amendment, the Senate was the place were a politician could afford to do what was right for the country, and not just what was popular at the time. Instead of creating a more enlightened form of government, the 17th amendment turned the Senate into just another echo chamber of popular passion, which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

In the early 20th century, proponents of the 17th amendment argued that it would get rid of the corruption involved in senatorial election. If bribery was their main concern, however, they only added to the problem by increasing the amount of people a senator had to bribe to win an election. Providing for the popular election of senators only increased the amount of lobbying in Washington, and with it the influence of special interests in politics, something the public complained about 90 years ago and still deals with today.

Another reason for the passage of the 17th amendment was legislative deadlock. State legislatures would many times reach a deadlock in electing a senator and not send anyone to Washington, sometimes going as long as 4 years without representation. Lack of representation due to deadlock should not be a problem, however. If the 17th amendment were repealed, states could make provisions in their own constitutions so that if the state legislature cannot agree on a candidate by a certain time, the governor could appoint a senator. This type of election process would encourage less-partisan politics by forcing both parties to work together to elect responsible leadership.

Repealing the 17th amendment would renew America's lost federalism and restore a more responsible form of government. Just as we have a firm belief in the independence and strength of the individual, the founders had a firm belief in the strength and independence of the states. Our country was not built on the idea of a strong federal government that undermined and bullied states into accepting restrictions on their powers, but rather the idea of balance between the federal and state governments. The founding fathers sought to preserve the balance of power throughout American government, and one way they did this was by giving state governments a voice in the federal government. Federalism is served not by directly-elected senators, but by senators elected by the representatives of the people in each of the state legislatures. Election of senators by the state legislatures would get the people more interested and involved in their own state politics and take senators' focus away from federal government expansion.