Below The Beltway

In obvious response to the scandal surrounding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to make sure it can’t happen again:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, issued the following statement today on plans to introduce an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end appointments to the Senate by state governors and require special elections in the event of a Senate seat vacancy.

“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. 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 mid term 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.”

Given that this is way that we fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives, this proposal does make a lot of sense, although it seems to me that it’s a bit of an over-reaction given the fact that Blagojevich is perhaps unique in the history of American politicians in the manner in which he attempt to profit from the availability of a Senate seat. Moreover, if the people of Illinois, or New York, want their Governor to appoint a Senate replacement rather than going through the expense of a statewide special election, why shouldn’t they be permitted to make that choice ?

There is another alternative, of course, and it’s one I’ve discussed in the past and which Riley at Virginia Virtucon discusses today:

Repeal the 17th Amendment.

The 96-year experiment with the direct election of senators has pretty much been a bust.  The Founding Fathers established the two distinct chambers of Congress for separate purposes — the House to represent the people and the Senate to represent the interests of the states.  This was one of the great compromises in 1789 to bring together those who supported a new constitution with those who supported a modification of the Articles of Confederation that were then in effect.  All the 17th Amendment did was make the Senate a glorified version of the House.  Certainly voters have not done a better job at installing legislative giants in the Senate than state legislatures did until 1913.

Of course, that’s not saying that state legislatures did all that great a job either. American political history is replete with examples of Senate seats being passed out at the whim of political bosses in return for favors, which is perhaps the reason why Senators like Daniel Webster stand out as the exception, rather than rule when it comes to 19th Century legislators.

More importantly, though, focusing on repealing the 17th Amendment — which, politically, has even less of a chance of getting past the Amendment requirements of Article Five than Feingold’s proposed Amendment — ignores the fact that there are far bigger things wrong than who chooses the Senators:

[F]rom a procedural point of view the 17th Amendment is certainly one of the factors that has made the expansion of Federal power, and the erosion of Federalism, more easy to accomplish. Returning to direct election of Senators *might* have a positive impact, but that will only happen if the Senators elected have a proper understanding of their role under the Constitution.

Does anyone really think that state legislatures will do any better in sending Senators to Washington who fit that definition than voters have done ?

I don’t.