Last week, my colleague Matt Winesett penned a piece calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which established the popular election of U.S. senators. Prior to the amendment’s ratification in 1913, state legislatures elected members of the Senate. Winesett alleges repealing the 17th Amendment would restore the requisite deliberation expected of the upper chamber of Congress and lead to a greater interest in local politics. However, such an action would merely transfer many of the shortcomings in federal governance to the state level.
In regard to the first matter, Winesett is right to say local elections warrant greater public attention. Virginia’s voter turnout during the 2012 presidential election was 72 percent; three years later only 29 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2015 state elections. However, overturning the 17th Amendment would cause the public to further dismiss issues relevant to state and local government. As Slate’s David Schleicher notes, prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment, state legislative elections turned into proxies for national debates and neglected to discuss issues over which state legislatures had exclusive control, such as local infrastructure, state tax policy and education.
Instead, if we are truly interested in increasing voter participation in state and local elections we should demand states institute automatic voter registration and repeal voter ID laws, which effectively disenfranchise 21 million Americans and are, as Pennsylvania House Speaker and Republican Mike Turzai acknowledged in an odd display of candor and hubris, ultimately intended to skew election outcomes.
Second, Winesett states the direct election of senators causes legislators to prioritize winning re-election over evaluating each “bill on its own intrinsic merits,” referencing Congress’ frantic attempts to revise the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, after overriding a presidential veto. Clearly political expediency was the deciding factor in most senators’ stance on the legislation — the only senator to vote against the bill was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who announced last year he would retire at the end of his term. However, there is no reason to believe the Senate would have acted any differently had their re-election been determined by state legislatures. Given the widespread rumors suggesting Saudi nationals had aided the 9/11 hijackers and the overwhelmingly low public perception of Saudi Arabia, it is likely that many state legislators would pressure U.S. senators to support JASTA nonetheless, fearing that doing otherwise would diminish the former’s chances of winning re-election.
Finally, given the antics that often occur within state legislatures, empowering state congressmen to elect U.S. senators would lead to more political gridlock and irresponsible governance in Washington. Despite the actions of individuals such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), most U.S. senators adhere to a high standard of professionalism. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of many state legislators. In 2011 former Arizona State Senator and Republican Lori Klein received national attention after carrying a loaded handgun into the State Capitol and pointing her firearm at a reporter to show off the weapon’s laser sighting. In Tennessee, Texas and Pennsylvania, legislators are known to engage in ghost voting, a common practice in which congressmen cast votes for individuals who did not attend the legislative session. While other state legislators may show a greater degree of gravitas, the aforementioned antics do not make me any more inclined to revoke my right to elect my U.S. senator.
But perhaps the greatest reason not to repeal the 17th Amendment is the possibility of creating a greater disconnect between Washington policymakers and the public. For decades, political newcomers have criticized those living inside the Beltway of being out of touch with the average citizen — an accusation that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has exploited throughout his candidacy. Repealing the 17th Amendment further legitimizes this narrative. While some may claim that such a disconnect would be in keeping with the Framers’ original intent, it is worth noting that Jefferson himself acknowledged the limitations of the Founding Fathers’ foresight.
Surely, there are many shortcomings in our current political system. Too often, it appears as if apathy and self-interest undermine Congress’ ability to govern effectively and leads to political gridlock. However, repealing the 17th Amendment is a poor solution to today’s challenges to governance, which merely burdens an increasingly polarized institution with the dysfunction and theatrics characteristic of state politics.
Brandon Brooks is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.brooks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
