The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution is all about how we elect senators. Before this amendment, things were quite different and, many argued, not very democratic. This change was a significant step in making the Senate more accountable to the people.
The Old Way of Choosing Senators and Why It Didn’t Work
Originally, the Constitution set up a system where state legislatures chose senators. Each state legislature would pick two senators to represent their state in the U.S. Senate for six-year terms. The idea was that senators would represent the states and be a bit removed from the direct popular vote, acting as a more deliberative body.
However, this system started to show some serious problems. Sometimes, state legislatures couldn’t agree on a senator, especially if the state government was politically divided. This led to Senate seats being vacant for long periods, sometimes months or even years, leaving states without full representation.
Even worse, there was growing concern about corruption and undue influence. Special interest groups and powerful political machines could sway state legislatures. Critics, particularly during the Progressive Era, saw senators chosen this way as puppets of these special interests, turning the Senate into a “millionaires’ club” that didn’t really serve the public.
The Progressive Push for Change
The Progressive movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was all about reform and making government more responsive to the people. One of their key goals was the direct election of senators. They believed that letting citizens vote directly for their senators would reduce corruption and make the Senate more accountable to the public will.
One early reform effort was the “Oregon system.” This wasn’t a law, but a political tactic where voters in Oregon would indicate their choice for senator in a primary election. Candidates for the state legislature then pledged to honor the results of this primary. While over half of the states adopted similar systems, it became clear that a constitutional amendment was needed for real, nationwide change. A bribery scandal in the 1912 election of an Illinois senator further fueled public demand for direct elections.
The Path to the 17th Amendment
The push for a constitutional amendment gained momentum. The House of Representatives passed resolutions for direct election in both 1910 and 1911. However, these early versions included a controversial “race rider” that was seen as a way to undermine the voting rights of Black Americans, granted by the 15th Amendment, under the guise of state sovereignty.
Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas introduced a substitute amendment that removed this “race rider” and simply focused on direct election. The Senate narrowly passed this amended version in May 1911. After some back-and-forth, the House eventually agreed, and the 17th Amendment was officially adopted on April 8, 1913.
The 17th Amendment: Senators Elected by the People
So, what exactly does the 17th Amendment do in simple terms? It changed the Constitution to say that senators are elected directly by the people of each state. Here are the key points:
- Direct Election: Instead of state legislatures, it’s the voters in each state who now elect their senators.
- State Election Rules Apply: The rules for who can vote in Senate elections are the same as for voting for the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
- Filling Vacancies: If a Senate seat becomes vacant, the state governor can call for an election to fill it. The state legislature can also allow the governor to make a temporary appointment until an election is held.
In essence, the 17th Amendment made the U.S. Senate more directly democratic and responsive to the citizens of each state, addressing the problems of the old system and fulfilling a key goal of the Progressive movement.
