One of the clearest measures of anti-Washington feeling this election year is the attack on a little-remembered, century-old amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Republican candidates in more than a half-dozen states have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913 and which provides for the direct election of U.S. senators. Prior to the amendment, senators were designated by state legislatures.
"People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the states," Mike Lee, who supports repeal, told reporters recently. Mr. Lee is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate from Utah.
Proponents of repeal say the amendment wrecked the founding fathers' balance between national and state governments, removing one of the last checks to unbridled power in Washington. Opponents counter that direct election of senators, long a goal of the Progressive movement of that era, expanded democracy.
The idea of repealing the 17th Amendment has bounced around conservative and libertarian circles for years, but is enjoying a resurgence this year thanks to the rise of tea-party candidates, who often embrace a strict view of the Constitution. It coincides with a broader attack on Progressive-era changes, notably the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax, and taps into the belief that big government began in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.
The Idaho Republican Party has adopted the cause. Tea party-backed Senate candidates in Alaska and Utah advocate repeal, as do many candidates running for the House, as well as some sitting politicians.
In Florida, Democratic campaigns have attacked Republican rivals for considering the idea. In Colorado, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee paid for ads criticizing Ken Buck, the Republican Senate candidate, over the issue. Mr. Buck later reversed his support for repeal. Christine O'Donnell, the Republican Senate candidate in Delaware, supports a strict reading of the Constitution, but says she doesn't support repeal of the 17th Amendment.
W. Cleon Skousen, a big influence on John Birch Society members 50 years ago and the contemporary tea party, pitched the idea starting in the 1980s. Libertarians like Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) have long supported the notion. Former Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, a Democrat, presented a bill in 2004 to repeal the amendment; it did not attract a single co-sponsor.
Repeal proponents argue that returning to the Constitution's original blueprint would give states the ability to kill federal legislation they don't like by recalling their senators.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton fought hard against the notion that the Senate should represent the states, and that legislatures should appoint senators. But both men, proponents of a strong national government, ultimately swallowed the compromise to save the Constitution.
"They all saw that as a crushing defeat," said Carol Berkin, a professor of American history and expert on the Constitution at Baruch College. Giving states veto power over national policy in the Senate is "really not what the men who wrote the Constitution intended," she said.
The tea party's embrace of the original plan for the Senate also collides with the movement's assault on elites. The framers of the Constitution explained that the Senate would be filled through "select appointments" and was specifically designed to protect people from "the tyranny of their own passions."
The system began to break down in the late 19th century, when several states spent years squabbling over who to send to the Senate. Local power brokers in state legislatures wielded outsized influence in Washington. Some 29 states, starting with Oregon, began to experiment with popular election of senators as a way to combat corruption and the weight of special interests in the selection process.
State pressure to overhaul the system finally compelled Congress to draft the constitutional amendment. The amendment was ratified by the states less than a year after it passed Congress; only Utah voted against.
