On April 8, 1913, the 17th amendment to the Constitution, providing for the popular election of U.S. senators, was ratified.
Prior to this, senators had been appointed by state legislatures. It was John Dickinson of Delaware who suggested that the Senate be selected by state legislatures. “The combination of the state governments with the national government was as politic as it was unavoidable,” he argued. But as early as 1826, resolutions calling for direct popular election of senators appeared in the House of Representatives, but none succeeded. Following the Civil War, disputes among state legislators over Senate elections resulted in deadlocks, leaving some Senate seats vacant for long periods — Delaware remained without representation in the U.S. Senate for two years. In light of such problems, reformers in many states began calling for a change to the system of electing senators. In 1906, publisher William Randolph Hearst, a proponent of direct election, hired novelist David Graham Phillips to write a number of articles on the subject. Phillips’ series, “The Treason of the Senate,” portrayed senators as pawns of industrialists and financiers — with no small amount of hyperbole (to put it politely). The articles further galvanized public support for reform.
Senator Joseph Bristow of Kansas offered, in 1911, a Senate resolution to amend the Constitution. In two years the Constitution was amended.
1 reply on “The 17th Amendment”
Article V of the Constitution specifies how the Constitution may be amended. As the Article is just one long sentence, I quote it in full, with the part of interest in bold type:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
The Constitution does not confuse the constituent states with their citizens, so handing the representation of the states to those people in no way preserves the representation of those states. The supposèd Seventeenth Amendment could not have been adopted without the unanimous consent of the states.
The problem in challenging the supposèd Amendment is that courts must recognize standing of the challenger. At the least, one would have to be a state representative, and the courts might even insist that only a state attorney general would have standing.
Further, conservatives Justices would quail and “progressive” Justices would ignore Constitutional logic; so the challenge would be pushed aside.
Moreover, if the supposèd Amendment were somehow set aside, the state politicians would swiftly act to delegate the representation back to the citizens.
Still, we should be aware that the Constitution has, in more ways than one, here been violated.