Restore the Balance: Why We Should Repeal the 17th Amendment

By Bart L. Denny, Ph.D.

The genius of the U.S. Constitution lies not only in its checks and balances but also in its brilliant design of federalism—a system intended to distribute power between the national and state governments. However, in 1913, the ratification of the 17th Amendment fundamentally altered that balance. By providing for the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people rather than their appointment by state legislatures, the amendment weakened the states' role in national governance and eroded a key structural safeguard against federal overreach. Though well-intentioned, the 17th Amendment has led to unintended consequences that now demand a sober reconsideration. If we are serious about restoring the vision of the Framers and strengthening the voice of the states within our federal union, it is time to repeal the 17th Amendment.

The Founders’ Design and the Purpose of the Senate

The original Constitution crafted two houses of Congress to represent two distinct constituencies: the House of Representatives to speak for the people, and the Senate to speak for the states. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison explained that giving state legislatures the power to appoint Senators ensured that the national government remained connected to the governments of the individual states. This arrangement was not an accident—it was a deliberate check on federal power.¹

The bicameral structure was a cornerstone of American federalism. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 27, such mechanisms were necessary to prevent the federal government from absorbing state functions.² The states, in appointing Senators, were granted a direct voice in the national legislature, allowing them to guard their sovereignty and resist coercive federal mandates.

The 17th Amendment and the Erosion of State Sovereignty

By stripping state legislatures of their ability to appoint Senators, the 17th Amendment effectively severed the states from one of their key levers of influence in Washington. Today, Senators are no longer accountable to their state governments, but instead to broad national constituencies, campaign donors, and partisan agendas.³

This shift has allowed the federal government to grow at the expense of the states. Federal mandates, regulations, and spending programs now pour into states with little resistance, often ignoring local concerns or unique regional contexts. Senators, once guardians of state interests, have become national political actors—chasing headlines, fundraising across state lines, and acting with little regard for the governments they were once meant to represent.

The Rise of Partisanship and the Loss of Deliberation

One of the original purposes of the Senate was to be a more deliberative body—insulated from the shifting passions of popular opinion. The Founders designed it to slow down legislation, ensure careful debate, and provide mature oversight. By turning the Senate into another popularly elected chamber, the 17th Amendment made it more susceptible to populism, polarization, and political grandstanding.⁴

In fact, some argue that the Senate now mirrors the House of Representatives in tone, tactics, and priorities. Senators, constantly in campaign mode, are more likely to toe the party line or pander to national audiences than to serve as thoughtful representatives of state concerns. This has exacerbated legislative gridlock and undercut the Senate’s constitutional purpose.

Direct Elections: Not the Cure They Were Promised to Be

Advocates of the 17th Amendment believed direct elections would curb corruption and empower the people. While it is true that state legislatures were occasionally deadlocked or influenced by special interests, today’s system has hardly proven cleaner. Modern Senate races cost millions of dollars, with campaign funding dominated by national donors, super PACs, and partisan machines.⁵

What we have traded is local influence for national manipulation. Instead of being accountable to state legislatures with defined oversight roles, Senators now often answer to political operatives, lobbyists, and cable news audiences. The result is a Senate less accountable to the states and more beholden to forces far removed from the citizens they purport to serve.

A Path Forward: Restoring the States’ Seat at the Table

Repealing the 17th Amendment would restore a key component of federalism by giving state governments direct representation in Congress once again. It would not eliminate democratic accountability—state legislators themselves are elected by the people. Rather, it would shift the Senate back toward its constitutional role: a deliberative body that protects state sovereignty and tempers the impulses of centralized government.

Some critics argue that repeal is unrealistic or anti-democratic. But if our goal is effective, balanced, and constitutionally faithful governance, then we must be willing to consider structural reforms. Repealing the 17th Amendment would not cure all of Washington’s ills, but it would reinvigorate the role of the states, restore accountability to state governments, and reassert a vital principle of American liberty: that power must be divided to be restrained.

Conclusion

The 17th Amendment may have been passed in the spirit of reform, but over a century later, it has failed to deliver on its promises—and has undermined the very foundations of American federalism. By repealing it, we would not be turning back the clock, but rather recovering the wisdom of a constitutional structure designed to preserve liberty through balance. The time has come to restore the voice of the states, renew our commitment to federalism, and return the Senate to its rightful place in our constitutional system.

---

Footnotes

1. James Madison, The Federalist No. 62, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Signet Classics, 2003), 378–82. ↩
2. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 27, in The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter (New York: Signet Classics, 2003), 168–71. ↩
3. Todd Zywicki, "Beyond the Shell and Husk of History: The Meaning of the Seventeenth Amendment and a Return to Federalism," Cleveland State Law Review 45, no. 1 (1997): 165–235. ↩
4. Forrest McDonald, States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000), 223–25. ↩
5. Sean Parnell, “Restoring the Framers’ Design: A Critique of the Seventeenth Amendment,” Policy Analysis no. 697 (Cato Institute, 2012): 5–7. ↩

---

Bibliography

• Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist No. 27. In The Federalist Papers, edited by Clinton Rossiter, 168–71. New York: Signet Classics, 2003.
• Madison, James. The Federalist No. 62. In The Federalist Papers, edited by Clinton Rossiter, 378–82. New York: Signet Classics, 2003.
• McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
• Parnell, Sean. “Restoring the Framers’ Design: A Critique of the Seventeenth Amendment.” Policy Analysis no. 697. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2012.
• Zywicki, Todd. “Beyond the Shell and Husk of History: The Meaning of the Seventeenth Amendment and a Return to Federalism.” Cleveland State Law Review 45, no. 1 (1997): 165–235.