By A group of House Republicans is taking aim at one of the biggest Progressive Era changes to the Constitution: the 17th Amendment.
Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, has introduced a joint resolution that would repeal the amendment and return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures. That was the original constitutional design before the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, shifted Senate elections to direct popular vote.
The proposal is backed by several conservative lawmakers, including Reps. Eric Burlison of Missouri, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Andy Harris of Maryland, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Sheri Biggs of South Carolina, and Michael Cloud of Texas.
For supporters, the resolution is about more than election procedure. It is about restoring the Senate’s original purpose, writes The Daily Caller.
The House was designed to represent the people directly. The Senate was designed to represent the states as sovereign political communities. By giving state legislatures the power to choose senators, the Constitution gave state governments a direct voice in Washington and a built-in defense against federal overreach.
The 17th Amendment changed that balance. Senators became statewide political figures running expensive public campaigns, raising national money, and often thinking more about party politics and personal ambition than the state governments they were supposed to represent.
Self argues that the old system gave senators a stronger reason to defend state authority against Washington. If senators depended on state legislatures for their jobs, they would have had to pay much closer attention when federal agencies, courts, and bureaucrats trampled state power.
Burlison made a similar point, describing the original Senate as a check on centralized power and a way to temper national passions. He tied the 17th Amendment, along with the 16th Amendment creating the federal income tax, to the long rise of federal power, federal spending, and national debt.
Higgins was even more direct, calling the 17th Amendment one of the most consequential changes in American constitutional history. In his view, direct election opened Senate races to massive outside spending and helped turn them into media-driven political spectacles, far removed from the more sober process the Founders envisioned.
The argument is not that voters should have no voice. State legislators are elected by voters. The argument is that the federal system was supposed to give states a formal role inside the national government, not merely leave them to complain after Washington had already acted.
Rep. Victoria Spartz’s office has also pointed out that states may have options short of a full repeal. Legislatures could consider systems involving party conventions, legislative votes, or hybrid approaches to candidate selection while the 17th Amendment remains in place.
The debate has a long history.
Before 1913, state legislatures chose U.S. senators. That system sometimes produced deadlocks, especially when legislative chambers were divided between parties. Delaware, for example, went without one of its senators for nearly two years in the 1890s after lawmakers failed to agree on a choice.
Critics of the old system also argued that political machines and wealthy interests had too much influence over legislative selections. By the early 20th century, reformers were pushing hard for direct election. Nearly 30 states had already adopted systems giving voters some role in Senate selection before the 17th Amendment was ratified. One of the best-known was the “Oregon Plan,” under which legislative candidates pledged to support the Senate candidate who won the popular vote.
The amendment followed decades of proposals in Congress. It passed the Senate in 1911, cleared the House the next year, and was ratified by the states in 1913.
But conservatives have long argued that the reform came with a steep constitutional cost. By removing state legislatures from the process, they say, the amendment weakened federalism and helped turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives—only with longer terms, bigger egos, and far less accountability.
Supporters of repeal often point back to the Founders’ own explanations of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers defended legislative selection as a way to tie the federal government to the states and elevate candidates with proven records of ability, judgment, and public confidence.
Repealing a constitutional amendment would not be easy. The only amendment ever repealed was the 18th Amendment, which imposed Prohibition and was overturned by the 21st Amendment in 1933.
Self’s resolution has not advanced in the House, and any repeal effort would face enormous procedural and political hurdles. It would require approval by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
[Read More: Trans Democrat Threatens ‘Jihad’]
