The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Clause 1 of the Amendment provides for the direct election of Senators, which was an important reform. Before the adoption of the 17th Amendment Senators were selected by the State legislatures, not by the people, which led to anomalous results such as Stephen Douglas defeating Abraham Lincoln for the Senate in 1858 even though Lincoln won the popular vote. Clause 2 of the 17th Amendment, however, failed to cure a similar defect of the original Constitution, which allowed state governors to fill vacancies when Senators resign, die, or are removed from office.
Clause 2 of the 17th Amendment states:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
Despite the foregoing language in the Amendment allowing governors to make "temporary appointments" only, according to Nate Silver most of the states allow their governors to fill the senatorial vacancies for the remainder of the term without holding a special election.
Glenn Thrush of The Politico reports that Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has announced that he will propose a constitutional amendment that will close this loophole by requiring senate vacancies to be filled by special election. Senator Feingold stated:
The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end," Feingold said in a press release. "In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected midterm vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.
In light of the recent uproar over gubernatorial appointments to fill U.S. Senate vacancies in Illinois and New York, this seems like an excellent proposal.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I do not agree with Russ Feingold on much, but I think he is all over this.
There are some recent incidents that make you shake your head.
In the 16th congressional district, there was over 7 million dollars spent on the election. What must a senate seat be worth? The potential for shenanigans boggles the mind.
In the 2004 election, when it appeared that John Kerry could win, the Massachusetts state government stripped the governor of the ability to appoint a Senate replacement because of political party affiliation.
A special election was held for Stephanie Tubbs Jones remaining 2-months of her term. If we can hold an election for a 2 month term then why not a 2-year senate term?
Dave,
I believe that that Russ Feingold's amendment will draw broad bipartisan support. I cannot think of any rational objections to it except for the cost of a special election and considerations of timing, such as a vacancy occuring near the end of a six-year term.
Is it not interesting that this will be yet another constitutional amendment broadening democracy, like previous amendments granting the vote to blacks, women, and young people, mandating the direct election of senators, and abolishing the poll tax.
Next on the list – abolish the Electoral College and provide for a two-person presidential run-off election in case no-one achieves a majority of the popular vote.
I'll have to fight you on the Electoral College. I think it is a truly remarkable system. It ensures that states with smaller populations still have a say in the Presidential race. As our population stagnates, this will be more and more important to us in Ohio.
Now if you want to improve the system, how about something really radical…
At large congressmen. Give me a group large enough to be a voting block (15-20?). Elect them to a single 8-year term, term-limited of course. Voted upon by the entire country. Send them to the capitol to represent the nation.
Imagine if people in Washington had the big picture in mind instead of their little piece of the county.
Dave,
I guess I really don't care about the rights of small states. For example, I think it outrageous that Vermont has as many votes in the United States Senate as California. All just powers of government are derived from the people, not the geographic areas or political subdivisions, and every person in a democracy should have an equal voice in the government. I realize that this is not in accord with the "Great Compromise" agreed to at the Constitutional Convention – I just think it's time to overturn it.
Also, Dave, with the "winner take all" system that the states are allowed to employ with their electoral votes (which is itself grossly undemocratic) the small states receive less attention than they would under a system of popular vote. As it stands, no-one cares how Montana or Wyoming as a whole votes – but under a system of popular voting their citizens' votes would count just the same as everyone else.
As for your system of at-large, long-term, term-limited representatives – I don't like it because IT'S DIFFERENT and I am not used to it so there!
As I get older, I learn to appreciate our founding fathers more and more.
We both know this is not a democracy, but I submit that a republic is a good thing and not a bad thing.
We should fear the 'tyranny of the masses.'
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 rightly protects minorities from democracy. What if the 'have-nots' get together and vote themselves the possessions of the 'haves'?
President Obama was a Senator from a state with 27 Representatives. Vice-President Biden was a Senator from a state with 1 Representative. Due to Biden's tenure he was considered a much more powerful Senator, there is certainly some irony there.
As each state was added to the union, the political subdivisions were taken into account by the people's representatives. It would be interesting if a state would try to split in today's political climate.
Admittedly, there is still some work to do in my plan for at-large representatives. I figure it will be a while before the next constitutional convention.