Origins and Intent of the Seventeenth Amendment
The Seventeenth Amendment, enacted in 1913, mandates that U.S. Senators must be elected by popular vote, rather than being selected by state legislatures. This change was a significant shift in the American political landscape.
At the heart of the push for the Seventeenth Amendment was the issue of corruption. State legislatures were often influenced by business magnates and special interests, leading to backroom deals in the selection of Senators.
The Progressives advocated for direct democracy, arguing that democratically elected Senators would be more accountable to voters. However, the Founding Fathers had a different vision. They designed a bicameral system where the Senate, appointed by state legislatures, would balance the directly elected House of Representatives.
By the late 1800s and early 1900s, state elections had become proxy battles for Senate seats. The Oregon System, allowing voters to cast non-binding ballots for their preferred Senators, emerged as a grassroots solution.
Despite some opposition from those concerned about state sovereignty, the Seventeenth Amendment was ultimately ratified. It marked a shift from the Founders' vision of federalism towards a more direct form of democracy.

Impact on State Sovereignty
The Seventeenth Amendment significantly altered the balance of power between state and federal governments. Before the amendment, state legislatures directly chose Senators, giving states a direct role in federal governance. Senators were accountable to their state legislatures and acted as intermediaries between state and federal interests.
By removing this power from state legislatures, the amendment weakened state influence in Washington. Senators' allegiances shifted from state legislatures to national politics, often prioritizing re-election and broader voter bases over specific state concerns.
Key Impacts on State Power:
- Reduced Senate's role as a check against federal overreach
- Diminished state influence over presidential appointments, including federal judges
- Eroded states' ability to ensure federal decisions considered state-centric perspectives
Critics argue that while direct elections may have increased voter choice, they came at the cost of weakened state power, diluted checks and balances, and a Senate more aligned with national interests than individual state concerns.

Debate Over Federalism and Democracy
The Seventeenth Amendment sparked a debate between federalism and direct democracy that continues today. Federalists argue that the amendment transformed the Senate from a safeguard of state interests into a body too similar to the House of Representatives. They contend that this change undermined the Founders' vision of a two-tiered system of governance and invited unvetted populist impulses into the legislative process.
Critics of the amendment also claim it blurred the distinctions that bicameralism was meant to uphold, making both chambers susceptible to the same national issues and lobbying interests, while diminishing the unique voice of individual states.
"The Seventeenth Amendment has transformed the Senate from a bulwark of state sovereignty into a redundant popular assembly."1
Conversely, proponents of the amendment view it as a victory for public accountability. They argue that the pre-1913 Senate was dominated by wealthy power-brokers, and that direct elections cleared out corruption and made governance more responsive to the people.
Supporters point to pre-amendment failings such as deadlocked state legislatures and vacant Senate seats as evidence that the change was necessary. They see direct election as a modernization of governance that aligns with democratic principles.
This debate reflects a fundamental disagreement about the nature of American democracy and federalism. It pits those who prefer closer adherence to the Founders' original design against those who believe the Seventeenth Amendment corrected flaws in the old system.

Consequences for Legislative Functioning
The direct election of Senators has significantly impacted campaign financing and accountability. Candidates now need to appeal to entire states rather than just state legislators, leading to a massive increase in campaign spending. OpenSecrets reports nearly a billion dollars flowed into Senate races during the 2022 midterms1.
This shift has raised questions about who Senators are truly accountable to – voters or wealthy donors. The constant focus on re-election and fundraising can distract from genuine state concerns and legislative duties.
The relationship between state and federal governments has also changed. Senators now tend to align more with federal initiatives than state interests. This has led to a decrease in state influence over federal policies and appointments.
The original system of state-appointed Senators was designed to give states a voice in federal affairs. The current setup may prioritize national popularity over representing state-specific needs.

Modern Perspectives and Calls for Repeal
Some conservative thinkers and political figures have called for repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. They argue that restoring state legislatures' power to choose Senators would help curb federal overreach and restore balance to the federal system.
Proponents of repeal, including George F. Will and constitutional scholars like Wendy Schiller and Todd Zywicki, suggest that state-appointed Senators would be more accountable to state needs. Justice Antonin Scalia and Senator Mike Lee viewed the amendment as damaging to federalism2.
However, repealing the amendment faces significant hurdles. It would require:
- A two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate
- Ratification by three-fourths of the states
This is a challenging prospect in today's political climate.
Critics of repeal argue it would be a step backward for democracy. They see the amendment as promoting transparency and reducing corruption. The average voter might also be reluctant to give up their direct say in choosing Senators.
Academics like Todd Zywicki argue the amendment altered bicameralism and made Senators more susceptible to special interests. Defenders counter that direct election safeguards against entrenched political machines and gives citizens a stronger voice.
Despite ongoing debate, the Seventeenth Amendment seems unlikely to be repealed due to political and public resistance.
The Seventeenth Amendment altered the balance between state and federal governments, changing representation and accountability dynamics. Its alignment with the Founding Fathers' vision remains a topic of debate.