Malcolm Rivera
The Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified on April 8, 1913, changed the way senators were elected, allowing for their direct election by the voting public. The amendment was proposed by the 62nd Congress in 1912 and became part of the Constitution when three-quarters (36) of the state legislatures ratified it. The amendment requires a governor to call a special election to fill vacancies in the Senate and allows state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments. While proposed amendments to reform senatorial elections emerged in the early 19th century, they gained popularity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as several problems related to Senate elections became evident.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name of Amendment | Seventeenth Amendment |
| Date of Ratification | 8 April 1913 |
| Previous System of Election | Senators were elected by state legislatures |
| New System of Election | Senators were elected directly by the voting public during elections |
| States' Reform Efforts | Oregon was the first state to conduct senatorial elections by popular vote in 1908; by 1912, 29 states were nominating senators on a popular basis |
| Amendment's Impact on Senators' Decision-Making | Senators now made decisions based on the demands of their constituents, rather than state legislatures |
| Amendment's Impact on State Loyalty | The amendment was criticised for potentially reducing the state loyalty of elected leaders |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The original method of electing senators
The first proposal to amend the Constitution to elect senators by popular vote was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1826 by Henry R. Storrs, but the idea did not gain considerable support until the late 19th century when several problems related to Senate elections had become evident. These issues included electoral deadlocks in state legislatures, legislative corruption, and the perception of the Senate as a "millionaire's club" serving powerful private interests.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were increasing calls for reform, with reformers in many states advocating for a change to the system of electing senators. Oregon, for example, enacted measures in the early 20th century that allowed voters to express their choice for senator, and other states followed this "Oregon Plan" with their own versions of election reform.
In 1906, publisher William Randolph Hearst, a proponent of direct election, hired novelist David Graham Phillips to write a series of articles titled "The Treason of the Senate," which offered an unsympathetic and largely fictionalized account of senators as pawns of industrialists and financiers. This further galvanized public support for reform.
In 1911, Senator Joseph Bristow of Kansas offered a Senate resolution to amend the Constitution, and it was passed by the Senate on June 12, 1911. The resolution then moved to the House of Representatives, which approved it, and then to the states for ratification. On April 8, 1913, three-quarters of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, and it was officially included as the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment History: 17th Amendment's Addition to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Calls for reform
One of the main issues was the dominance of legislative elections by the process of selecting senators, which distracted voters from other important issues. This led to the perception that the Senate had become the "vital issue" in all legislative campaigns, with the policy positions and qualifications of state legislative candidates being overlooked. In addition, there were frequent deadlocks among state legislators over Senate elections, resulting in Senate vacancies lasting for extended periods.
Another concern was the influence of political machines and powerful private interests on Senate elections. Senators were often accused of being puppets of industrialists, financiers, and other special interests, rather than representing the people. The Senate was even referred to as a "millionaire's club" by some.
Oregon became the first state to implement senatorial elections by popular vote in 1908, following earlier measures in the early 20th century that allowed voters to express their preference for senatorial candidates. This "Oregon Plan" was soon adopted by other states, with at least 29 states nominating senators on a popular basis by 1912.
The growing dissatisfaction with the original system of electing senators led to increasing calls for reform, including from publishers and novelists who used their platforms to advocate for direct election. By 1911, Senator Joseph Bristow of Kansas offered a Senate resolution to amend the Constitution, and the momentum for change continued to build.
Michigan's Constitution: Amendments and Their Timing
You may want to see also
State laws amended to enable voters' preference
The Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which came into effect on April 8, 1913, allows for the direct election of senators by the people. Before this, senators were chosen by state legislatures, and not by popular vote.
The Seventeenth Amendment was the result of increasing dissatisfaction with the original method of electing senators. State laws were amended to allow voters to express their preference for one of several party candidates for a senatorial seat. This was known as the "Oregon Plan", as Oregon was the first state to conduct senatorial elections by popular vote in 1908. By 1912, at least 29 states were nominating senators on a popular basis.
The amended laws allowed voters participating in primary elections to designate their preferred candidate for senator. The nominations were then transmitted to the legislature, which generally elected the candidate with the most votes. In some states, candidates for legislative seats were required to support the senatorial candidate with the most votes, regardless of party ties.
The Seventeenth Amendment has been the subject of legal disputes, including a 1991 case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that the amendment does not require primaries for special elections. More recently, in 2020, there were calls for a repeal of the amendment by certain senators and political analysts, who argued that state legislatures would guarantee the state loyalty of elected leaders.
Amendment Story: 21st Amendment's Addition to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The 17th Amendment's legal disputes
The 17th Amendment, which established the direct election of United States senators by popular vote, has been the subject of legal disputes and varying interpretations since its proposal and ratification in the early 20th century.
One of the key legal disputes surrounding the 17th Amendment centres on the balance of power between state legislatures and the federal government. The amendment's passage marked a significant shift in the constitutional structure, as it removed the power of state legislatures to choose senators, transferring it directly to the voters in each state. This change was considered by some as a removal of an essential power from state legislatures, and it has been criticised by conservatives and Republicans for altering the original constitutional framework.
Another point of contention is the amendment's impact on appointments following vacancies in the Senate. The 17th Amendment allows state legislatures to authorise their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. However, the specifics of the temporary appointee selection process are not outlined in the Constitution, leading to varying interpretations and disputes.
The 17th Amendment has also been invoked in court cases pertaining to Senate elections and ballot access. In MacDougall v. Green, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Illinois statute that set a high threshold for political parties to place their candidates on the ballot for U.S. Senate. The Progressive Party challenged this statute, arguing that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the people's right to directly elect their senators as guaranteed by the 17th Amendment.
Furthermore, the 17th Amendment has been examined in the context of the First Amendment's freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition rights. Legal scholars have argued that certain limitations on these freedoms could be inconsistent with the protections afforded by the 17th Amendment, which safeguards the right of citizens to vote for their representatives in the Senate and have their votes counted.
Overall, the 17th Amendment's legal disputes revolve around the tension between state power and federal authority, the interpretation of vacancy appointments, and the interplay with other constitutional amendments and rights.
The Amendments: Constitutional Convention's Proposed Changes
You may want to see also
The 17th Amendment's impact on state loyalty
The 17th Amendment, which was added to the United States Constitution in 1913, had a significant impact on the way senators were elected, changing the process from election by state legislatures to direct election by the people. This amendment had far-reaching consequences for state loyalty, shifting the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, citizens' primary loyalty was to their state, and the federal government was a loose collection of state treaties. The original method of electing senators, in which each state legislature chose its senators, reinforced this state-centric dynamic. However, the 17th Amendment's introduction of direct election altered this longstanding loyalty dynamic. With senators now directly accountable to the people, the federal government's power increased substantially relative to the states.
The direct election of senators also had an impact on the political composition of the Senate. Judge Bybee noted that the amendment, combined with the "one man, one vote" principle established by the Supreme Court in 1964, led to a more equitable representation of votes. This shift prevented malapportionment, where rural votes could be given more weight than urban votes, and resulted in a more balanced Senate composition.
In addition, the 17th Amendment addressed issues that had arisen in the late 19th century regarding Senate elections. State legislatures were sometimes deadlocked over senator elections, leaving seats vacant for extended periods. Political machines also gained control over state legislatures, leading to concerns about corruption and senators being labelled as ""puppets". The direct election of senators helped to mitigate these problems, ensuring that Senate vacancies were filled more promptly and directly by the people.
The process of amending the Constitution to allow for the direct election of senators was not without its challenges. While the idea was first proposed in 1826, it did not gain widespread support until the late 19th century when the issues with Senate elections became more apparent. Despite the House of Representatives passing resolutions in support of direct election in the 1890s, the Senate initially refused to even vote on the matter. It was only when the number of state applications for a convention neared the two-thirds bar required by Article V of the Constitution that Congress finally acted, with the Senate passing a resolution in 1911.
Amendment 26: Voting Rights for 18-Year-Olds
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US Constitution was amended for the popular vote of senators on April 8, 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified.
The Seventeenth Amendment states that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people for six years. The Amendment also allows state governors to appoint temporary officials to hold vacant Senate seats until a special election can be held.
Before the Seventeenth Amendment, senators were elected by state legislatures.
The Seventeenth Amendment was passed due to increasing dissatisfaction with the original system of electing senators. There were several problems with the original system, including deadlocks over Senate elections that left seats vacant for long periods, and the perception that senators were controlled by powerful private interests.
The first proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for the popular election of senators was introduced in the US House of Representatives in 1826, but it did not gain widespread support until the late 19th century. In the early 20th century, some states began enacting measures to allow voters to express their choice for senator, and in 1906, William Randolph Hearst published a series of articles attacking the Senate and galvanizing public support for reform. The final version of the proposed amendment was produced in 1912, and it was ratified by three-quarters of the states on April 8, 1913.
