IDAHO FALLS — U.S. Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, both Republicans, say they oppose repealing the 17th Amendment that provides for direct election of senators by the public.
The repeal is a goal approved by the Idaho Republican Party at its convention last month.
The 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 after a decade of problems with state legislatures unable to agree on a candidate to fill vacant U.S. Senate seats. The move for change also gained traction amid bribery scandals that led to some senators being removed from office.
reads a story in today's Idaho Press Tribune.
I first heard about this issue on the Facebook page of Brian Cronin, who posted:
This, you gotta read to believe. And if you don't have time, here's the re-cap: Both leading Republican candidates for US Congress in CD1 believe that legislators--not voters--should elect US Senators. And they're being egged on by the Tea Party. Please, please, please tell me voters are paying attention to this!
Cronin, a Democrat, is an Idaho State Representative in District 19B.
Idaho's two Republican United States Senators agree with him on this issue. So does Idaho District 2 Congressman Mike Simpson, also a Republican.
"The platform on the 17th Amendment is one I disagree with," Crapo told the Post Register. "I think senators should be elected by popular vote."
Risch rejected arguments that states’ rights would increase by having state lawmakers pick U.S. senators.
"How can you be more accountable to the states than if you have to stand up and face the electorate?" he told the newspaper.
The Press Tribune reported that Idaho Gov. Butch Otter on Friday released a statement saying he sympathized with supporters of the resolution, but declined to state his own position.
Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, is a backer of the resolution that he said is also supported by Otter, and that socialism in the federal government would be stopped by repealing the amendment.
"I have supported (repeal), and the governor has supported this, for a very long time," he said. "If we had the senators responsible to the state legislators, well that’s the state of Idaho right there. We need to have those senators responsible to the state legislators."
The Associated Press reports that Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby, also supports repealing the 17th Amendment.
I think the Founding Fathers set up for the senators to represent the state government, not the state as a whole, and I feel like that’s gotten twisted. I think this resolution would give Idaho a much larger voice.
Back in early May Randy Stapilus of Ridenbaugh Press wrote about the fact that a:
Tea Party questionnaire delivered to Idaho candidates, and signed by a number of them, has all sort of peculiar entries. Maybe the most peculiar of all has gotten little attention, but it should for what it says about the real nature of the Tea Party, and the forces behind it.
It came up, though, when the two main candidates for the Republican nomination in Idaho’s 1st congressional district, Vaughn Ward and Raul Labrador, appeared on an Idaho Public Television weekly program in a near-debate. One of the questions (at just past the 13-minute mark) that may have seemed obscure to many voters came from analyst Jim Weatherby, who had noticed that the Tea Party form indicated support for repeal of the 17th amendment, and that both Ward and Labrador had said they supported repeal.
The 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1913, and it changed a procedure in place since the nation’s founding, Stapilus said.
Up to then, U.S. senators had been chosen by state legislators. The amendment, which was enacted as part of the progressive movement, changed that to provide that the voters of each state would do the honors.
The state legislatures idea grew out of the caution that the nation’s founders had about placing power directly in the hands of ordinary voters; those voters, remember, were once far more limited (by gender, property ownership and otherwise) than they are now. As the right to vote expanded, so gradually did demands that voters rather than politicians choose their own senators.
Stapilus goes on to explain how eventually, problems associated with legislative selection made the case ever stronger. In some cases, legislatures deadlocked over choices, and states went without senatorial representation for years. Worse than that were the many cases of bribery and corruption; a seat in the U.S. Senate was something worth bribing and corrupting over. Popular election of senators has hardly been a perfect thing, but it has worked a lot more smoothly than its predecessor approach, he argues.
So why would the Tea Party, which likes to present itself as a movement which takes power away from politicians to give it to "the people," be so enamored of this idea that specifically and clearly does the opposite?
Do we have a Democracy fetish?
Conservative blogger Adam Graham says we do.
On his blog, Graham made an attempt at explaining the rationale behind such thinking:
It’s been quite popular in the Idaho blogosphere to question why anyone in the World would want to do away with the 17th Amendment and the wonderful direct election of Senators.
Boise Guardian finds Raul Labrador and Vaughn Ward’s stance "worrisome." One might as well worry about being attack by the Flathead Lake monster when visiting Kalispell, Montana. The odds are about as good. I’ve talked before about how the odds of this actually passing are slim to none. Neither Raul Labrador nor Vaughn Ward are planning a bill and the knee jerk response we’ve had here indicates none will be forthcoming. Their answer was that if a hypothetical bill were offered, they would support it.
Stapilus contends that Ward and Labrador have been incoherent in delivering sort-of answers, making reference to states rights, blogging:
"I think it’s important that the senators be beholden to the people of Idaho," Labrador responded at one point; but this change would make them directly beholden not to the voters but to fellow-politician legislators. Under either plan, senators are chosen within the various states; the question is whether they are beholden to the state’s voters or to a majority of the state’s legislators. (Ward said that he agreed.) Could it just be a general disapproval of every reform enacted in the United States since the dawn of the 20th century? (If so, there go the initiative, referendum and recall too.)
Stapilus then asks more specifically: Who benefits from such an approach? Which "people" would be getting government under their contorl?
Presumably, Stapilus argues, the same people who tended to benefit way back then: Those who have the big bucks to corrupt state legislators with, and to buy Senate seats – which often is exactly what happened in the 19th century.
Graham fired back that he is surprised that Stapilus thinks that this is
a position held only by three headed aliens. The late Congressman Jack Metcalf supported repeal of the 17th Amendment (see Politics in America 1996 from Congressional Quarterly.)
"At any rate, I’ll take an opportunity to explain my position," Graham said.
To begin with, we must first understand that our Founding Fathers didn’t establish a Democracy, had no intentions of it. As good political scientists, they studied the history of democracicies and found that democracies failed in short order
Graham offers a couple of choice quotes:
Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide ... -John Adams
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.- Thomas Jefferson
"In our modern society," Graham says, we have a bit of a democracy fetish (emphasis added). We believe if only we have more issues that people vote on and give people a greater direct vote that it will make things better. It’s simply not the case."
Graham wrties that The Founders sought to build a Republic where all power would still come from the consent of the governed, but that the direct source of this power would be diffuse to the end of protecting American liberty, to protect us from tyranny and improper laws that may arise from public passions. James Madison wrote in Federalist 62:
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.
Graham says that the Senate, as designed by the Founders was meant to represent the interests of the State. According to him, the 17th Amendment "fundamentally changed the character of the U.S. Senate and to great national injury."
His position is that the growth in the size and scope of the federal government, as it has assumed more duties and functions that were once handled by the local and state governments, is caused by the fact that the Senate no longer has to directly answer to the State legislature for the way it votes.
Graham argues that the 17th Amendment transformed the body intended by our founders to represent the State Government of each state into a body of career politicians with eternal careers.
See Graham's blog for the full text of his argument.
Labrador, who won the May 25th who won the May 25 GOP primary for Democratic Rep. Walt Minnick’s seat, also says it’s a state’s rights issue. To paraphrase his position: The 17th Amendment has contributed to an erosion of state’s rights and to a too-powerful federal government.
Minnick responded to the Tea Party Boise survey with a statement that included his opposition to repealing the 17th Amendment.
Stapilus gave this update on his site:
In his blog, Adam Graham refers to the televised exchange on this:
"(Former Boise State Political Science Professor Jim) Weatherby called this out as some big problem. In reality, it’s one of those conservative wish list items that Ward and Labrador won’t spend one minute thinking about if elected to Congress. It’s because moments like this that the issue won’t be addressed, because the argument is not given a serious treatment."
There’s a bit of news, actually, in that: Since when is taking away election of senators from the voters and giving it to the legislature a "conservative wish list item"? Can’t recall seeing it in years past; maybe missed it. But if in any event it is now, why is that? What’s the appeal in it for conservatives, even if they (Graham, at least) consider it a long-shot preference?
So Cronin's wish about this issue receiving more attention was granted. Weeks ago, in the Idaho Press Tribune, Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director Jim Hansen called Ward’s and Labrador’s position on the issue "bizarre" and "odd."
That Press Tribune story also mentions that Congressman Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, proposed repealing the 17th Amendment in March.
According to College of Idaho political economy department chairman Jasper LiCalzi:
The 17th Amendment was ratified in order to more democratize our political system ... It’s hard to believe they want to say the people can’t make this decision," LiCalzi said. "The whole history of this country has been one of giving more power to our people, and this would be the first time we’ve stepped (back).
Hansen added:
"All the issues facing this state ... and they’re worried about turning back a century of electing U.S. senators by direct vote and turning it over to the Legislature. Clearly they’re out of touch with what’s affecting people’s lives."
According to Boise State University Department of Public Policy and Administration Chair Stephanie Witt:
The presence of the Tea Party movement and its possible influence on the Republican Party could have something to do with Vaughn Ward and Raul Labrador’s stance on the issue.
I would like to know if the public would like to lose control of saying who their senators are going to be. My guess is they would not.