GREAT DEBATE: REPEALING THE 17TH AMENDMENT

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1912, gave American voters the power to directly elect the U.S senators for their state. Previously, senators were selected by their state legislatures instead. Yet, there is an interesting political movement – albeit, a small one – where advocates actually wish to repeal the law.

This brings up constitutional questions about what the purpose of the senate is, and if a regression of democracy is really something people should consider.

By far the most common argument advocates make for repealing the 17th Amendment is that senate members were not constitutionally designated to be directly elected. The legislative branch in the United States is separated, with two levels: U.S. representatives are meant to represent the people, which is why they’re directly elected by residents in each district, while senators were meant to represent their entire state – as a singular entity.

Because the senators are elected by the people and not by the state legislatures, proponents of repeal argue that the senators are representing the people and not the state itself, when it might be necessary. If the state is involved in a certain conflict – economic policy, for example – then a senator would be better equipped to represent the state on matters that might be publicly unpopular but necessary for the state’s economy to survive.

In contrast, in a directly elected senate, senators often avoid taking the unpopular route due to a potential loss at re-election. Ultimately, as the repeal argument goes, because senators are elected by voters, they largely appeal to the people and look to future elections rather than worrying about their state’s true best interests.

The idea of repealing the 17th Amendment does not come without criticism, and those arguments are equally interesting.

The most common reasoning from the opposition is that in practice it would inevitably lead to corruption in the office. That corruption was one of the main reasons the law was passed in 1912, and is still a concern with modern politics. In addition, some critics would also argue that repeal is politically impractical. If a state’s legislature was overwhelmingly filled with Democrats or Republicans, then the legislature would continue to choose members of that same party to strengthen their political power on the national level. 

I have always had a penchant for questions related to constitutional interpretation, and the 17th Amendment is one of the more underrated topics in the discussion. I find myself quite split on the topic,  as I find both sides to have compelling arguments.

The 17th Amendment does make the senatorial office redundant, as senators’ election is now mixed with the populist House of Representatives. Yet, the 17th Amendment also prevents (or at least minimizes) corruption in the office due to having to appeal to the political moods of the people.

Overall, the rhetoric against repealing the 17th Amendment remains much stronger than that from advocates of the change.  

The Amendment does stop senators from making the populist decision when it is harming to the state.  Yet, the Senators may be used as party pawns by the state legislature to gain more power of Congress,  Ultimately, while I find myself hesitant to insist on repealing the 17th Amendment, I am now deeply sympathetic to the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment.  While the movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is small and may never succeed in their goals, I do believe that this is a topic worth discussing as we have to decide the values and priorities of our interpretation of one of the most important political offices in the United States.