However, starting in roughly the s and then more dramatically after the Civil War, the vision the Founders had—in which state legislatures would deliberate over the selection of Senators—began to fray.
The most famous instance of this was the race for Senate in Illinois in , in which Abraham Lincoln faced off with Stephen Douglass despite neither being on the ballot.
In s, many states started holding direct primaries for Senate, reducing the degree of influence state legislatures had over selection. By , twenty-eight of the forty-five states used the Oregon System or some other form of direct elections. The push for the Seventeenth Amendment occurred both in state legislatures and the House of Representatives. Between and , thirty-one state legislatures passed resolutions either calling on Congress to pass an amendment providing for the direct election of senators, to hold a conference with other states to work on such an amendment, or to have a constitutional convention such that the direct elections for Senator could be included in a newly drawn Constitution.
Amendments to the Constitution providing for direct elections passed the House in each session between and But several influential Senators managed to hold off the Amendment for more than two decades. Their effort was aided by a decision to link the Amendment to a controversial effort to remove from Congress the power to pass rules governing federal elections under the Elections Clause of Article I. Eventually, though, the issues were split and it passed both Houses in and was ratified by the States in The arguments for the Seventeenth Amendment sounded in the case for direct democracy, the problem of hung state legislatures, and in freeing the Senate from the influence of corrupt state legislatures.
The Progressive movement that pushed the Seventeenth Amendment supported other constitutional changes at federal, state, and local levels like the initiative and referendum, non-partisan elections, and unicameral legislatures although there has never been a major effort to provide for democratic election of federal judges.
The Seventeenth Amendment was seen as part of a broader effort to make an end-run around the control that parties, machines, and special interests had over state legislatures.
Many big special interests supported it as well. The popular perception that Senate seats could be bought in backrooms of state legislatures fueled support for direct elections. Further, supporters of the Amendment argued that races for Senate swamped interest in state issues in state legislative races, reducing the accountability of state legislatures on any issue other than the identity of Senators.
By the time the Seventeenth Amendment finally passed, it was wildly popular. In recent years, however, the Seventeenth Amendment has come under some criticism from conservatives like Justice Antonin Scalia, columnist George Will, and a host of Republicans in Congress for removing an important power from state legislatures.
Further, the implications of the Amendment—particularly its effect on appointments following vacancies—have become the subject of some dispute. But despite this, the change wrought by the Seventeenth Amendment seems quite secure and remains the only major change to the structure of Congress. The election of U. Senators by state legislatures was essential to the original constitutional structure, and the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in dramatically changed the constitutional structure in a fashion that is little appreciated.
As an institutional matter, election of Senators by state legislatures was intended to further two of the essential functions of the original constitutional design, federalism and bicameralism. Moreover, because of the role played by the Senate in confirmation of federal judges and Executive branch officials, Senators elected by state legislatures might be expected to be more cognizant of the positions of these appointees on matters of federal-state relations.
In light of the subsequent controversies regarding the Senate that eventually culminated in the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment, it is interesting to note that the proposal gained almost universal support at the Constitutional Convention and was little-debated at the Convention. The election of Senators by state legislatures was also essential to the design of bicameralism, i.
This concern about liberty-encroaching and special interest-responding legislation was especially acute among the Framers of the Constitution, who believed that state legislatures under the Articles of Confederation were overly-prone to these vices.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Learn about the only amendment…. In this session, students learn about voting rights in America through a historical exploration of the right to vote in America. House of Representatives in , but the idea did not gain considerable support until the late 19th century when several problems related to Senate elections had become evident. Several state legislatures deadlocked over the election of senators, which led to Senate vacancies lasting months and even years.
In other cases, political machines gained control over state legislatures, and the Senators elected with their support were dismissed as puppets. The rise of the People's Party, commonly referred to as the Populist Party, added motivation for making the Senate more directly accountable to the people.
During the s, the House of Representatives passed several resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment for the direct election of senators. Each time, however, the Senate refused to even take a vote. When it seemed unlikely that both houses of Congress would pass legislation proposing an amendment for direct election, many states changed strategies.
Article V of the Constitution states that Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments when two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for one.
0コメント