According to the Seventeenth Amendment Who Could Elect Senators

1913 amendment establishing the straight election of senators

The
Seventeenth Amendment
(Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the straight election of United states senators in each state. The amendment supersedes Commodity I, Section 3, Clauses 1 andtwo of the Constitution, nether which senators were elected by land legislatures. Information technology also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held.

The amendment was proposed past the 62nd Congress in 1912 and became part of the Constitution on April 8, 1913, on ratification past 3-quarters (36) of the state legislatures. Sitting senators were not affected until their existing terms expired. The transition began with two special elections in Georgia[ane]
and Maryland, then in earnest with the November 1914 election; it was complete on March iv, 1919, when the senators chosen at the November 1918 ballot took office.

Text

[edit]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each Country, elected past the people thereof, for half-dozen years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall accept the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of whatsoever State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall effect writs of ballot to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people make full the vacancies past election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to bear upon the election or term of whatever Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[2]

Background

[edit]

Original limerick

[edit]

Originally, under Article I, Section three, Clauses 1 and2 of the Constitution, each state legislature elected its land’s senators for a six-yr term.[3]
Each state, regardless of size, is entitled to two senators as function of the Connecticut Compromise betwixt the small and big states.[4]
This assorted with the House of Representatives, a body elected by popular vote, and was described equally an uncontroversial decision; at the time, James Wilson was the sole advocate of popularly electing the Senate, merely his proposal was defeated 10–1.[5]
In that location were many advantages to the original method of electing senators. Prior to the Constitution, a federal body was i where states effectively formed nothing more than permanent treaties, with citizens retaining their loyalty to their original state. However, nether the new Constitution, the federal government was granted substantially more ability than before. Having the country legislatures elect the senators reassured anti-federalists that there would be some protection against the federal government’south swallowing up states and their powers,[6]
and providing a check on the power of the federal government.[7]

Additionally, the longer terms and avoidance of pop ballot turned the Senate into a body that could counter the populism of the Firm. While the representatives operated in a 2-year direct election bike, making them frequently accountable to their constituents, the senators could beget to “accept a more detached view of issues coming before Congress”.[eight]
State legislatures retained the theoretical right to “instruct” their senators to vote for or against proposals, thus giving the states both direct and indirect representation in the federal authorities.[9]
The Senate was part of a formal bicameralism, with the members of the Senate and House responsible to completely distinct constituencies; this helped defeat the problem of the federal government beingness subject to “special interests”.[10]
Members of the Ramble Convention considered the Senate to be parallel to the British House of Lords equally an “upper house”, containing the “better men” of society, but improved upon as they would be conscientiously chosen by the upper houses of land legislatures for fixed terms, and not simply inherited for life as in the British system, subject to a monarch’due south capricious expansion. It was hoped they would provide abler deliberation and greater stability than the House of Representatives due to the senators’ status.[eleven]

Issues

[edit]

According to Judge Jay Bybee of the Us Courtroom of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, those in favor of popular elections for senators believed two chief problems were acquired by the original provisions: legislative corruption and electoral deadlocks.[12]
There was a sense that senatorial elections were “bought and sold”, irresolute hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate. Between 1857 and 1900, the Senate investigated 3 elections over abuse. In 1900, for example, William A. Clark had his election voided after the Senate concluded that he had bought votes in the Montana legislature. Only conservative analysts Bybee and Todd Zywicki believe this concern was largely unfounded; there was a “famine of difficult data” on the subject.[xiii]
In more than a century of legislative elections of U.Southward. senators, but ten cases were contested for allegations of impropriety.[xiv]

Balloter deadlocks were another issue. Because country legislatures were charged with deciding whom to appoint as senators, the system relied on their power to concord. Some states could not, and thus delayed sending senators to Congress; in a few cases, the system broke down to the point where states completely lacked representation in the Senate.[fifteen]
Deadlocks started to get an outcome in the 1850s, with a deadlocked Indiana legislature assuasive a Senate seat to sit vacant for two years.[xvi]
The tipping betoken came in 1865 with the election of John P. Stockton (D-NJ), which happened subsequently the New Bailiwick of jersey legislature changed its rules regarding the definition of a quorum and was thus elected by plurality instead of by absolute majority.[17]

In 1866, Congress acted to standardize a two-step procedure for Senate elections.[18]
In the first footstep, each bedchamber of the state legislature would run into separately to vote. The post-obit solar day, the chambers would come across in “articulation assembly” to assess the results, and if a bulk in both chambers had voted for the same person, he would exist elected. If not, the joint assembly would vote for a senator, with each member receiving a vote. If no person received a bulk, the joint associates was required to go on convening every day to take at least ane vote until a senator was elected.[xix]
Yet, betwixt 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked across twenty states;[14]
in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903.[20]
The business of holding elections also acquired not bad disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon Business firm of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The outcome was that Oregon’due south legislature was unable to laissez passer legislation that year.[twenty]

Zywicki again argues that this was not a serious effect. Deadlocks were a problem, but they were the exception rather than the norm; many legislatures did not deadlock over elections at all. Virtually of those that did in the 19th century were the newly admitted western states, which suffered from “inexperienced legislatures and weak political party subject field… as western legislatures gained experience, deadlocks became less frequent.” While Utah suffered from deadlocks in 1897 and 1899, they became what Zywicki refers to as “a good teaching experience”, and Utah never again failed to elect senators.[21]
Another concern was that when deadlocks occurred, state legislatures were unable to conduct their other normal business; James Christian Ure, writing in the
Southward Texas Police force Review, notes that this did non in fact occur. In a deadlock state of affairs, land legislatures would deal with the affair by property “i vote at the beginning of the day—and then the legislators would continue with their normal affairs”.[22]

Eventually, legislative elections held in a state’s Senate election years were perceived to have go and then dominated by the business of picking senators that the country’s choice for senator distracted the electorate from all other pertinent issues.[23]
Senator John H. Mitchell noted that the Senate became the “vital issue” in all legislative campaigns, with the policy stances and qualifications of state legislative candidates ignored by voters who were more interested in the indirect Senate ballot.[24]
To remedy this, some state legislatures created “advisory elections” that served equally de facto full general elections, allowing legislative campaigns to focus on local bug.[24]

Calls for reform

[edit]

Calls for a constitutional amendment regarding Senate elections started in the early 19th century, with Henry R. Storrs in 1826 proposing an subpoena to provide for popular election.[25]
Similar amendments were introduced in 1829 and 1855, with the “most prominent” proponent existence Andrew Johnson, who raised the consequence in 1868 and considered the idea’s merits “so palpable” that no additional explanation was necessary.[26]
Every bit noted above, in the 1860s, at that place was a major congressional dispute over the issue, with the House and Senate voting to veto the engagement of John P. Stockton to the Senate due to his approval past a plurality of the New Jersey Legislature rather than a majority. In reaction, the Congress passed a pecker in July 1866 that required country legislatures to elect senators by an absolute majority.[26]

Read:   Jack's Father Drives to Work in 30 Minutes

By the 1890s, support for the introduction of direct election for the Senate had substantially increased, and reformers worked on two fronts. On the first front, the Populist Party incorporated the straight ballot of senators into its Omaha Platform, adopted in 1892.[27]
In 1908, Oregon passed the starting time law basing the selection of U.South. senators on a popular vote. Oregon was before long followed by Nebraska.[28]
Proponents for pop election noted that 10 states already had not-binding primaries for Senate candidates,[29]
in which the candidates would be voted on by the public, effectively serving as informational referenda instructing state legislatures how to vote;[29]
reformers campaigned for more states to introduce a similar method.

William Randolph Hearst opened a nationwide popular readership for direct election of U.S. senators in a 1906 series of articles using flamboyant language attacking “The Treason of the Senate” in his
Cosmopolitan
magazine. David Graham Philips, ane of the “yellowish journalists” whom President Teddy Roosevelt called “muckrakers”, described Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island as the principal “traitor” among the “scurvy lot” in command of the Senate by theft, perjury, and bribes corrupting the state legislatures to gain election to the Senate. A few state legislatures began to petition the Congress for directly election of senators. By 1893, the Firm had the 2-thirds vote for only such an amendment. However, when the joint resolution reached the Senate, it failed from neglect, as it did once more in 1900, 1904 and 1908; each time the House approved the advisable resolution, and each fourth dimension it died in the Senate.[30]

On the second national legislative front, reformers worked toward a ramble amendment, which was strongly supported in the House of Representatives simply initially opposed by the Senate. Bybee notes that the state legislatures, which would lose ability if the reforms went through, were supportive of the campaign. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a constitutional subpoena allowing direct ballot, and in the same yr ten Republican senators who were opposed to reform were forced out of their seats, acting as a “wake-up phone call to the Senate”.[29]

Reformers included William Jennings Bryan, while opponents counted respected figures such every bit Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar among their number; Root cared and then strongly about the issue that after the passage of the Seventeenth Subpoena he refused to stand up for re‑election to the Senate.[12]
Bryan and the reformers argued for popular election through highlighting flaws they saw inside the existing system, specifically corruption and electoral deadlocks, and through arousing populist sentiment. Most important was the populist argument; that there was a need to “Awaken, in the senators… a more than acute sense of responsibleness to the people”, which it was felt they lacked; election through country legislatures was seen as an anachronism that was out of footstep with the wishes of the American people, and 1 that had led to the Senate becoming “a sort of aloof trunk—too far removed from the people, beyond their attain, and with no special interest in their welfare”.[31]
The settlement of the West and continuing absorption of hundreds of thousands of immigrants expanded the sense of “the people”.

Hoar replied that “the people” were both a less permanent and a less trusted body than state legislatures, and moving the responsibility for the election of senators to them would meet it passing into the hands of a body that “[lasted] but a day” before irresolute. Other counterarguments were that renowned senators could not have been elected directly and that, since a large number of senators had feel in the Business firm (which was already directly elected), a constitutional amendment would be pointless.[32]
The reform was considered past opponents to threaten the rights and independence of united states, who were “sovereign, entitled… to have a carve up co-operative of Congress… to which they could send their ambassadors.” This was countered by the argument that a change in the way in which senators were elected would non change their responsibilities.[33]

The Senate freshman grade of 1910 brought new promise to the reformers. Xiv of the xxx newly elected senators had been elected through party primaries, which amounted to pop selection in their states. More than half of united states of america had some form of chief option for the Senate. The Senate finally joined the House to submit the Seventeenth Subpoena to usa for ratification, virtually ninety years after it first was presented to the Senate in 1826.[34]

Past 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some class of direct ballot, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries.[35]
Xx-7 states had chosen for a ramble convention on the subject, with 31 states needed to reach the threshold; Arizona and New Mexico each accomplished statehood that twelvemonth (bringing the total number of states to 48), and were expected to back up the motion. Alabama and Wyoming, already states, had passed resolutions in favor of a convention without formally calling for one.[36]

Proposal and ratification

[edit]

Proposal in Congress

[edit]

In 1911, the Firm of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 39 proposing a ramble amendment for direct ballot of senators. The original resolution passed by the Business firm contained the following clause:[37]

The times, places, and fashion of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.

This so-chosen “race rider” clause would have strengthened the powers of states over senatorial elections and weakened those of Congress by overriding Congress’southward ability to override state laws affecting the fashion of senatorial elections.[38]

Since the turn of the century, near blacks in the South, and many poor whites, had been disenfranchised by state legislatures passing constitutions with provisions that were discriminatory in do. This meant that their millions of population had no political representation. About of the South had one-party states. When the resolution came before the Senate, a substitute resolution, 1 without the rider, was proposed by Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas. It was adopted past a vote of 64 to 24, with four not voting.[39]
Almost a year afterward, the House accepted the alter. The conference written report that would get the Seventeenth Amendment was canonical by the Senate 42 to 36 on April 12, 1912, and by the Business firm 238 to 39, with 110 non voting on May 13, 1912.

Ratification by u.s.a.

[edit]

 Original ratifier of amendment

 Ratified after adoption

 Rejected amendment

 No action taken on amendment

Having been passed past Congress, the amendment was sent to the states for ratification and was ratified by:[twoscore]

  1. Massachusetts: May 22, 1912
  2. Arizona: June iii, 1912
  3. Minnesota: June 10, 1912
  4. New York: January 15, 1913
  5. Kansas: January 17, 1913
  6. Oregon: Jan 23, 1913
  7. North Carolina: January 25, 1913
  8. California: January 28, 1913
  9. Michigan: January 28, 1913
  10. Iowa: Jan 30, 1913
  11. Montana: January 30, 1913
  12. Idaho: January 31, 1913
  13. West Virginia: February iv, 1913
  14. Colorado: February 5, 1913
  15. Nevada: February half dozen, 1913
  16. Texas: February seven, 1913
  17. Washington: February 7, 1913
  18. Wyoming: Feb 8, 1913
  19. Arkansas: February xi, 1913
  20. Maine: Feb 11, 1913
  21. Illinois: February 13, 1913
  22. Due north Dakota: February fourteen, 1913
  23. Wisconsin: Feb xviii, 1913
  24. Indiana: February 19, 1913
  25. New Hampshire: February 19, 1913
  26. Vermont: Feb 19, 1913
  27. South Dakota: February nineteen, 1913
  28. Oklahoma: February 24, 1913
  29. Ohio: February 25, 1913
  30. Missouri: March 7, 1913
  31. New Mexico: March 13, 1913
  32. Nebraska: March 14, 1913
  33. New Jersey: March 17, 1913
  34. Tennessee: April 1, 1913
  35. Pennsylvania: April 2, 1913
  36. Connecticut: April viii, 1913
    With 36 states having ratified the Seventeenth Subpoena, it was certified past Secretarial assistant of Land William Jennings Bryan on May 31, 1913, as part of the Constitution.[40]
    The subpoena has after been ratified by:
  37. Louisiana: June eleven, 1914
  38. Alabama: April 11, 2002[41]
  39. Delaware: July one, 2010[42]
    (after rejecting the subpoena on March xviii, 1913)
  40. Maryland: Apr 1, 2012[43]
    [44]
    [45]
  41. Rhode Island: June 20, 2014

The Utah legislature rejected the amendment on February 26, 1913. No activeness on the amendment has been completed past Florida,[46]
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Due south Carolina, Virginia, Alaska or Hawaii. Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states at the time of the amendment’s proposal, and have never taken any official action to support or oppose the amendment since achieving statehood.

Issue

[edit]

Most importantly, the Seventeenth Amendment removed state authorities representation from the legislative arm of the federal authorities. Originally, the people themselves did not elect senators; instead, states appointed senators. The senators represented the states’ interests, while the House of Representatives represented the interests of the people.

The Seventeenth Subpoena altered the process for electing United States senators and inverse the way vacancies would be filled. Originally, the Constitution required country legislatures to make full Senate vacancies.

According to Judge Bybee, the Seventeenth Subpoena had a dramatic bear upon on the political composition of the U.Due south. Senate.[47]
Before the Supreme Court required “one human being, one vote” in
Reynolds v. Sims
(1964), malapportionment of state legislatures was common. For example, rural counties and cities could be given “equal weight” in the land legislatures, enabling one rural vote to equal 200 metropolis votes. The malapportioned state legislatures would have given the Republicans command of the Senate in the 1916 Senate elections. With direct election, each vote represented every bit, and the Democrats retained command of the Senate.[48]

Read:   How Should the Food Worker Thaw the Fish

The reputation of decadent and arbitrary state legislatures continued to decline as the Senate joined the House of Representatives implementing popular reforms. Bybee has argued that the subpoena led to complete “discredit” for country legislatures without the buttress of a state-based bank check on Congress. In the decades following the Seventeenth Amendment, the federal regime was enabled to enact progressive measures.[49]
Still, Schleiches argues that the separation of land legislatures and the Senate had a beneficial consequence on the states, as it led state legislative campaigns to focus on local rather than national bug.[24]

New Bargain legislation is another instance of expanding federal regulation overruling the state legislatures promoting their local country interests in coal, oil, corn and cotton.[50]
Ure agrees, saying that not only is each senator at present free to ignore his country’s interests, senators “have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Courtroom justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty”.[51]
Over the first half of the 20th century, with a popularly elected Senate confirming nominations, both Republican and Democratic, the Supreme Court began to use the Beak of Rights to the states, overturning country laws whenever they harmed individual state citizens.[52]
It aimed to limit the influence of the wealthy.[53]

Filling vacancies

[edit]

The Seventeenth Amendment requires a governor to phone call a special election to fill vacancies in the Senate.[54]
It as well allows a land’due south legislature to permit its governor to brand temporary appointments, which last until a special election is held to fill the vacancy. Currently, all but five states (N Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) permit such appointments.[55]
The Constitution does not set out how the temporary appointee is to be selected.

First straight elections to the Senate

[edit]

Oklahoma, admitted to statehood in 1907, chose a senator by legislative ballot three times: twice in 1907, when admitted, and in one case in 1908. In 1912, Oklahoma reelected Robert Owen by informational popular vote.[56]

Oregon held primaries in 1908 in which the parties would run candidates for that position, and the land legislature pledged to cull the winner as the new senator.[57]

New Mexico, admitted to statehood in 1912, chose only its first ii senators legislatively. Arizona, admitted to statehood in 1912, chose its offset two senators by informational popular vote. Alaska, and Hawaii, admitted to statehood in 1959, have never chosen a U.S. senator legislatively.[56]

The first ballot subject to the Seventeenth Amendment was a late ballot in Georgia held June 15, 1913. Augustus Octavius Bacon was nonetheless unopposed.

The first direct elections to the Senate following the Seventeenth Amendment beingness adopted were:[56]

  • In Maryland on November four, 1913: a class 1 special election due to a vacancy, for a term ending in 1917.
  • In Alabama on May 11, 1914: a form 3 special election due to a vacancy, for a term ending in 1915.
  • Nationwide in 1914: All 32 class iii senators, term 1915–1921
  • Nationwide in 1916: All 32 course ane senators, term 1917–1923
  • Nationwide in 1918: All 32 class two senators, term 1919–1925

Court cases and interpretation controversies

[edit]

In
Trinsey v. Pennsylvania
(1991),[58]
the United States Courtroom of Appeals for the Tertiary Circuit was faced with a situation where, following the death of Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, Governor Bob Casey had provided for a replacement and for a special election that did not include a primary.[59]
A voter and prospective candidate, John S. Trinsey Jr., argued that the lack of a chief violated the Seventeenth Amendment and his right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment.[sixty]
The Third Circuit rejected these arguments, ruling that the Seventeenth Amendment does not require primaries.[61]

Another subject of assay is whether statutes restricting the authority of governors to appoint temporary replacements are constitutional. Vikram Amar, writing in the
Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, claims Wyoming’s requirement that its governor fill a senatorial vacancy by nominating a person of the same party as the person who vacated that seat violates the Seventeenth Amendment.[62]
This is based on the text of the Seventeenth Amendment, which states that “the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments”. The amendment only empowers the legislature to delegate the authority to the governor and, once that dominance has been delegated, does not permit the legislature to arbitrate. The authority is to decide whether the governor shall have the ability to appoint temporary senators, not whom the governor may engage.[63]
Sanford Levinson, in his rebuttal to Amar, argues that rather than engaging in a textual interpretation, those examining the meaning of constitutional provisions should translate them in the fashion that provides the most benefit, and that legislatures’ being able to restrict gubernatorial engagement authority provides a substantial do good to us.[64]

Reform and repeal efforts

[edit]

Notwithstanding controversies over the effects of the Seventeenth Amendment, advocates have emerged to reform or repeal the amendment. Nether President Barack Obama’s administration in 2009, iv sitting Democratic senators left the Senate for executive branch positions: Barack Obama (President), Joe Biden (Vice President), Hillary Clinton (Secretarial assistant of State), and Ken Salazar (Secretary of the Interior). Controversies developed about the successor appointments made by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and New York governor David Paterson. New involvement was aroused in abolishing the provision for the Senate appointment past the governor.[65]
Accordingly, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin[66]
and Representative David Dreier of California proposed an amendment to remove this ability; senators John McCain and Dick Durbin became co-sponsors, equally did Representative John Conyers.[65]

Some members of the Tea Party motility argued for repealing the Seventeenth Amendment entirely, claiming it would protect states’ rights and reduce the power of the federal government.[67]
On March 2, 2016, the Utah legislature approved Senate Joint Resolution No.two asking Congress to offer an subpoena to the United States Constitution that would repeal the Seventeenth Subpoena.[68]
As of 2010[update], no other states had supported such an subpoena, and some politicians who had made statements in favor of repealing the subpoena had later reversed their position on this.[67]

On July 28, 2017, after senators John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted no on Affordable Care Act repeal attempt Health Intendance Freedom Act, onetime Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee endorsed the repeal on the Seventeenth Amendment, challenge that senators chosen by state legislatures will work for their states and respect the Tenth Amendment,[69]
and also that direct election of senators is a major cause of the “swamp”.[seventy]

In September 2020, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska endorsed the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment in a Wall Street Journal stance slice.[71]

References

[edit]


  1. ^


    “Salary, Augustus Octavius (1839–1914)”.
    Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress. Archived from the original on February 24, 2020. Retrieved
    February 24,
    2020
    .
    became the beginning U.Due south. Senator elected by popular vote following ratification of the 17th Amendment, on July fifteen, 1913



  2. ^


    “The Constitution of the United States Amendments xi–27”. National Archives and Records Assistants. Archived from the original on May 26, 2013. Retrieved
    January 7,
    2011
    .



  3. ^

    Zywicki (1997) p. 169

  4. ^

    Vile (2003) p. 404

  5. ^

    Zywicki (1994) p. 1013

  6. ^

    Riker (1955) p. 452

  7. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 516.

  8. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 515.

  9. ^

    Zywicki (1994) p. 1019

  10. ^

    Zywicki (1997) p. 176

  11. ^

    Zywicki (1997) p. 180
  12. ^


    a




    b



    Bybee (1997) p. 538

  13. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 539.
  14. ^


    a




    b



    Zywicki (1994) p. 1022

  15. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 541.

  16. ^


    “Directly Ballot of Senators”.
    U.s. Senate. Archived from the original on December 6, 2017. Retrieved
    June 26,
    2014
    .



  17. ^

    Schiller et al. (July 2013) p. 836

  18. ^

    An Act to regulate the Times and Fashion of holding Elections for Senators in Congress, July 25, 1866, ch. 245, 14 Stat. 243.

  19. ^

    Schiller et al. (July 2013) pp. 836–37
  20. ^


    a




    b



    Bybee (1997) p. 542

  21. ^

    Zywicki (1994) p. 1024

  22. ^

    Ure (2007) p. 286

  23. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 543.
  24. ^


    a




    b




    c




    Schleicher, David (February 27, 2014). “States’ Wrongs”.
    Slate. Archived from the original on October 15, 2014. Retrieved
    October 9,
    2014
    .



  25. ^


    Stathis, Stephen W. (2009).
    Landmark debates in Congress: from the Announcement of independence to the war in Iraq. CQ Printing. p. 253. ISBN978-0-87289-976-6. OCLC 232129877.


  26. ^


    a




    b



    Bybee 1997, p. 536.

  27. ^


    Boyer, Paul S.; Dubofsky, Melvyn (2001).

    The Oxford companion to United states history
    . Oxford University Press. p. 612. ISBN978-0-19-508209-8. OCLC 185508759.



  28. ^

    “Direct Election of Senators” Archived December 6, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, United states Senate webpage, Origins and Development—Institutional.
  29. ^


    a




    b




    c



    Bybee (1997) p. 537

  30. ^

    MacNeil, Neil and Richard A. Baker,
    The American Senate: An Insider’due south History
    2013, ISBN 978-0-19-536761-iv. pp. 22–23.

  31. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 544.

  32. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 545.

  33. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 546.

  34. ^

    MacNeil, Neil and Richard A. Baker,
    The American Senate: An Insider’south History
    2013, ISBN 978-0-19-536761-iv. p. 23.

  35. ^

    Rossum (1999) p. 708

  36. ^

    Rossum (1999) p. 710

  37. ^


    “17th Subpoena: Direct Election of U.S. Senators”. August 15, 2016. Archived from the original on Apr 4, 2017. Retrieved
    Apr 3,
    2017
    .



  38. ^

    Zachary Clopton & Steven E. Art, “The Meaning of the Seventeenth Amendment and a Century of State Disobedience” Archived Apr 4, 2017, at the Wayback Auto, 107 Northwestern University Law Review 1181 (2013), pp. 1191–1192

  39. ^


    “17th Amendment to the U.South. Constitution: Direct Election of U.Due south. Senators”. August 15, 2016. Archived from the original on April 28, 2017. Retrieved
    April 3,
    2017
    .


  40. ^


    a




    b




    James J. Kilpatrick, ed. (1961).
    The Constitution of the United states and Amendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional Regime. p. 49.



  41. ^

    POM-309 Archived January 15, 2013, at the Wayback Motorcar, House Joint Resolution No. 12,
    A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of the Land of Alabama relative to ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Volume 148
    Congressional Record
    page 18241 (permanent, bound edition) and page S9419 (preliminary, soft-cover edition). September 26, 2002. Retrieved May 10, 2012.[
    chronology citation needed
    ]


  42. ^


    “Formally Ratifying the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Providing for the Popular Election of Senators to the U.s.a. Senate”. State of Delaware. Archived from the original on Feb 10, 2015. Retrieved
    Feb nine,
    2015
    .



  43. ^



    Senate Joint Resolution 2, April 1, 2012, archived from the original on December xiv, 2013, retrieved
    Apr 29,
    2012




  44. ^



    House Joint Resolution 3, April one, 2012, archived from the original on December 14, 2013, retrieved
    Apr 29,
    2012




  45. ^



    Bills signing May 22, 2012
    (PDF), May 22, 2012, archived from the original
    (PDF)
    on Jan 15, 2013, retrieved
    May 23,
    2012




  46. ^

    At the time, Article 16, Section 19, of the Florida Constitution provided that “No Convention nor Legislature of this Land shall deed upon any amendment of the Constitution of the United States proposed past Congress to the several States, unless such Convention or Legislature shall have been elected after such amendment is submitted.” The first legislature elected subsequently such submission did not see until April 5, 1913. See Fla. Const. of 1885, Art. III, § ii. By that time, the amendment had been ratified past 35 states, and, as noted above, would be ratified by the 36th state on Apr viii, 1913, a circumstance which made whatsoever action by the Florida Legislature unnecessary.

  47. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 552.

  48. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 552. Similarly, he believes the Republican Revolution of 1994 would not accept happened; instead, the Democrats would take controlled 70 seats in the Senate to the Republicans’ xxx. See Bybee 1997, p. 553

  49. ^

    Bybee 1997, p. 535. This was partially fueled by the senators; he wrote in the
    Northwestern University Law Review:

    Politics, similar nature, abhorred a vacuum, so senators felt the pressure to do something, namely enact laws. One time senators were no longer accountable to and constrained by land legislatures, the maximizing function for senators was unrestrained; senators near always constitute in their own interest to procure federal legislation, even to the detriment of state control of traditional country functions.

    Encounter Bybee 1997, p. 536.


  50. ^

    Rossum (1999) p. 715

  51. ^

    Ure (2007) p. 288

  52. ^

    Kochan (2003) p. 1053 Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the
    Albany Law Review, analyzed the consequence of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of land legislation. He found a “statistically meaning departure” in the number of cases holding country legislation unconstitutional earlier and later on the passage of the Seventeenth Subpoena, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold. As well the Seventeenth Amendment, decline in the influence of the states also followed economic changes. Zywicki observes that interest groups of all kinds began to focus efforts on the federal government, as national bug could not be directed by influencing just a few state legislatures of with senators of the most seniority chairing the major committees. He attributes the rise in the strength of interest groups partially to the development of the U.S. economy on an interstate, national level. See Zywicki (1997) p. 215. Ure likewise argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups to make full the void; with citizens replacing state legislators every bit the Senate’s electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in plow were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government. Encounter Ure (2007) p. 293

  53. ^


    Berke, Richard 50. (February 17, 2002). “Money Talks; Don’t Discount the Fat Cats”.
    The New York Times
    . Retrieved
    February xiii,
    2021
    .



  54. ^

    Vile (2010) p. 197

  55. ^


    Neale, Thomas H. (April 12, 2018). “U.S. Senate Vacancies: Contemporary Developments and Perspectives”
    (PDF).
    fas.org. Congressional Inquiry Service. Archived
    (PDF)
    from the original on June 5, 2018. Retrieved
    October 13,
    2018
    .


  56. ^


    a




    b




    c




    Dubin, Michael J. (1998).
    United States Congressional elections, 1788–1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. ISBN0-7864-0283-0.



  57. ^


    “Oral communication to the People of Washington by Senator Jonathan Bourne Jr. of Oregon, due north.d.”
    U.South. Capitol Visitor Center
    . Retrieved
    March 22,
    2022
    .



  58. ^



    Trinsey v. Pennsylvania
    , 941 (F.2d 1991).

  59. ^

    Gold (1992) p. 202

  60. ^

    Novakovic (1992) p. 940

  61. ^

    Novakovic (1992) p. 945

  62. ^

    Amar (2008) p. 728

  63. ^

    Amar (2008) pp. 729–30

  64. ^

    Levinson (2008) pp. 718–9
  65. ^


    a




    b




    Hulse, Carl (March ten, 2009). “New Idea on Capitol Loma: To Join Senate, Get Votes”.
    The New York Times. Archived from the original on August thirty, 2011. Retrieved
    September 19,
    2011
    .



  66. ^



    S.J.Res.7—A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Us relative to the election of Senators., Baronial 6, 2009, archived from the original on June 15, 2014, retrieved
    June 15,
    2014



  67. ^


    a




    b




    Firestone, David (May 31, 2010). “So You Still Want to Choose Your Senator?”.
    New York Times. Archived from the original on January 13, 2012. Retrieved
    September nineteen,
    2011
    .



  68. ^


    “SJR002”. State of Utah. Archived from the original on March 29, 2016. Retrieved
    March 22,
    2016
    .



  69. ^


    “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on October four, 2020. Retrieved
    September 27,
    2020
    .



    {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived re-create as title (link)


  70. ^


    “Archived re-create”. Archived from the original on November 25, 2020. Retrieved
    September 27,
    2020
    .



    {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally championship (link)


  71. ^


    “Ben Sasse Calls for Repealing 17th Amendment, Eliminating Pop-Vote Senate Elections”.
    National Review. September ix, 2020. Archived from the original on September 28, 2020. Retrieved
    September 22,
    2020
    .


Bibliography

[edit]

  • Amar, Vikram David (2008). “Are Statutes Constraining Gubernatorial Ability to Make Temporary Appointments to the United States Senate Ramble Under the Seventeenth Amendment?”.
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
    35
    (4). ISSN 0094-5617. SSRN 1103590.

  • Bybee, Jay S. (1997). “Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens’ Song of the Seventeenth Amendment”.
    Northwestern University Police Review. Northwestern University Schoolhouse of Police.
    91
    (1). ISSN 0029-3571.

  • Gold, Kevin M. (1992). “Trinsey five. Pennsylvania: State Discretion to Regulate U.s. Senate Vacancy”.
    Widener Journal of Law and Public Policy. Widener University School of Law.
    2
    (1). ISSN 1064-5012.

  • Haynes, George Henry (1912). Ringwalt, Ralph Curtis (ed.).
    The Election of Senators. H. Holt.

  • Hoebeke, Christopher Hyde (1995).
    The road to mass democracy: original intent and the Seventeenth Amendment. Transaction Publishers. ISBN1-56000-217-4.

  • Kochan, Donald J. (2003). “Country Laws and the Contained Judiciary: An Analysis of the Effects of the Seventeenth Subpoena on the Number of Supreme Court Cases Property State Laws Unconstitutional”.
    Albany Law Review.
    66
    (1). ISSN 0002-4678. SSRN 907518.

  • Levinson, Sanford (2008). “Political Party and Senatorial Succession: A Response to Vikram Amar on How Best to Interpret the Seventeenth Amendment”.
    Hastings Ramble Police Quarterly. University of California, Hastings College of the Constabulary.
    35
    (four). ISSN 0094-5617.

  • Novakovic, Michael B. (1992). “Constitutional Police: Filling Senate Vacancies”.
    Villanova Law Review. Villanova Academy School of Police force.
    37
    (i). ISSN 0042-6229.

  • Riker, William H. (1955). “The Senate and American Federalism”.
    American Political Science Review. American Political Science Clan.
    49
    (2): 452–469. doi:x.2307/1951814. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1951814.

  • Rossum, Ralph A. (1999). “The Irony of Constitutional Republic: Federalism, the Supreme Courtroom, and the Seventeenth Amendment”.
    San Diego Police Review. University of San Diego School of Police force.
    36
    (3). ISSN 0886-3210.

  • Tushnet, Mark (2010).
    The Constitution of the U.s.a.: A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing. ISBN978-1-84113-738-iv.

  • Ure, James Christian (2007). “You Scratch My Back and I’ll Scratch Yours: Why the Federal Wedlock Amendment Should Likewise Repeal the Seventeenth Subpoena”.
    Due south Texas Police force Review. South Texas Higher of Law.
    49
    (i). ISSN 1052-343X.

  • Vile, John R. (2003).
    Encyclopedia of ramble amendments, proposed amendments, and amending issues, 1789–2002
    (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO. ISBN978-ane-85109-428-8.

  • Vile, John R. (2010).
    A companion to the United States Constitution and its amendments
    (5th ed.). ABC-CLIO. ISBN978-0-313-38008-2.

  • Zywicki, Todd J. (1994). “Senators and Special Interests: A Public Selection Analysis of the Seventeenth Amendment”
    (PDF).
    Oregon Law Review. Academy of Oregon School of Police.
    73
    (1). ISSN 0196-2043.

  • Zywicki, Todd J. (1997). “Beyond the Vanquish and Husk of History: The History of the Seventeenth Subpoena and its Implications for Current Reform Proposals”
    (PDF).
    Cleveland Country Law Review. Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
    45
    (1). ISSN 0009-8876.

  • Wendy J. Schiller and Charles Stewart Three (May 2013), The 100th Ceremony of the 17th Amendment: A Promise Unfulfilled?, Issues in Governance Studies, Number 59 May 2013
  • Schiller, Wendy J.; Stewart, Charles; Xiong, Benjamin (July 2013). “U.S. Senate Elections before the 17th Amendment: Political Party Cohesion and Conflict 1871–1913”.
    The Journal of Politics.
    75
    (3): 835–847. doi:10.1017/S0022381613000479.

External links

[edit]



According to the Seventeenth Amendment Who Could Elect Senators

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Read:   How Did Pioneer Settlements Affect Land in the West

Check Also

Which Idea Was Supported by Aristarchus Copernicus and Galileo

Which Idea Was Supported by Aristarchus Copernicus and Galileo. Planetary Move: The History of an …