Sen. Buris and the 17th Amendment

The calls for the resignation of Roland Burris, the controversial junior Senator from the State of Illinois, keep mounting.  The controversy surrounds how he was appointed by now impeached Governor Rod Blagovjevich and whether there were any improper payments made for the appointment to the Senate seat vacated by President Obama.  Aside from whether anything improper was done, there is some unease over  a Governor under the threat of impeachment making a vacancy appointment.  Senator Russ Feingold even introduced legislation to begin the process to amend the Constitution to prohibit filling vacancies other than by appointment.   Before we go there, maybe we need to rethink why we have Senators and how they are selected.

Before 1913, the Constitution provided that Senators were appointed by the legislatures of the states.  Governors could only fill vacancies when the legislature was not in session.  The reason Senators were appointed by state legislatures was because the Senate was supposed to represent the states themselves - remember we are in a government of dual sovereignty where states have (or at least had until 1913) a voice in the federal government.  Because they represented the states, they reported to the legislature, and at least for some time were subject to recall by the legislature.  The system made perfect sence in 1789.  There was no direct federal tax on citizens, but there were levies on the States, and the States were responsible for raising the revenue (and most of the federal revenue was originally thought to have come from duties and imposts).  Since the state legislatures had to pay the bills of the Federal government, they should have a voice that reported to them.  After all, the Constitution gave representation to the people through a representative for every 30,000 people (see Taxation with Representation is Not So Good Either).  

Well, all of that changed in 1913 when the 17th Amendment was adopted.  The 17th Amendment changed the rules and required that Senators be elected by the people of the state - thereby disenfranchising the States.  Not coincidentally, 1913 was also the year that the Constitution was amended to make it clear that the federal government could directly tax the income of citizens.  Essentially, the States were left as virtually powerless administrative units with no effective representation.  We all have heard complaints of unfunded federal mandates placed on the states.  It is unlikely that those laws would have passed if the Senators were representing the States as opposed to a mass of people.  

There are many good reasons to have the election of our Senators directly by the people, but we need to recognize that doing so evicerates our States' influence in the federal government.  It is a lot easier to consolidate power when you have to be ousted by millions of voters, than by a few dozen legislators.  Senators are beholden to no one but their own conscience.  Remember that all politics are local, and we have influence more influence over local actions than we do distant governments.  We have more influence if our representatives were elected by 30,000 rather than by over 700,000.  

Feingold's Amendment has facial appeal, but it is inconsistent with the original intent of a full partnership between State and Federal Governments and the People they represent.  Certainly, our Country is much larger than it was in the 18th and 19th centuries and modern conveniences have made many conventions obsolete.  If we are rethinking how we elect Senators and Representatives, it is time we rethought how many we elect as well.  

My proposal is to have 3 Senators from each State - one appointed by the Governor, one by the legislature, and one elected at large by the people of the state.  All would be subject to recall by the same method they were appointed or elected.  In terms of the House, we need to increase the number so we decrease how many people are in each congressional district.  We need representatives of the people to be responsive.  My suggestion - limit the size of congressional districts to 150,000 inhabitants, which would result in a congress of about 2,000 members.  A large body to be sure, but not unworkable given the size of our Country and the issues we have before us.  Indeed, with modern technology, the need to be present full time in Washington is limited.  Representatives could spend more time in their districts and learn what the people really want.