Posted on 02/10/2010 12:10:30 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
PHOENIX -- A freshman Southern Arizona lawmaker is leading the effort to strip Arizona voters of the right to nominate U.S. senators.
The proposal by Rep. David Stevens, R-Sierra Vista, would give that right to the elected legislators from each party. Only after that process is complete would voters get a say, in the general election, who they actually want to send to Washington.
Stevens said his measure, if approved by Arizona voters in November, would be a partial return to the way things were before the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted.
Until then, each state legislature actually got to choose its U.S. senators, with voters allowed only to pick only the folks going to the House of Representatives. The 1913 amendment requires direct election of all members of Congress.
Stevens said that amendment was a mistake. He said the old system ensured that senators were responsive to the desires of state lawmakers.
"The state is supreme over the federal government,' he said. "And when they weren't doing what we thought they should be doing, we could recall them at any time.'
With direct election, Stevens said, federal senators are less interested in protecting the rights of the states and more interested in looking out for the powers of the federal government.
"It takes away the ability of the state to negotiate with the federal government,' he said.
Unable to repeal the 17th Amendment, Stevens is trying the next best thing: changing the nominating process.
He said HCR 2046 would not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution because it does preserve the direct election of senators as required. He said nothing in that amendment spells out the nominating process for those candidates, which is what he wants to change.
Because his plan requires voter approval, nothing in his measure would affect this year's Republican primary battle involving incumbent John McCain and challengers J.D. Hayworth and Chris Simcox.
Stevens said, though, there might be an entirely different political landscape if McCain, Hayworth and Simcox were busy battling for the support of the 35 House Republicans and 18 GOP senators rather than seeing who can corral more popular votes at the primary in August.
In fact, he said it is possible that someone like Hayworth, whose campaign warchest is going to be dwarfed by McCain, actually might have a better chance of becoming the party's nominee.
"He would have to come down and, basically, campaign us,' Stevens said.
Stevens said he believes he can sell voters on the idea of giving up their right to nominate their U.S. senators.
"I'll ask them if they feel like they're being served by their senators,' Stevens said.
"And I can pretty much tell you what they're answer is going to be, that is 'no,' ' he continued. Stevens added, though, he said he's not just talking about Arizona but the situation nationwide.
The plan will get no backing from McCain.
"Senator McCain believes all elections, primary and general, should be decided by the people, as stated in the Constitution,' said aide Brooke Buchanan.
Hayworth said he is sympathetic to what Stevens is trying to do.
"I believe in states' rights,' he said. But Hayworth said he can't support this specific measure.
"Right now I just think it's important for the people to decide' who are their Arizona senators.
And Simcox said he's not sure if such a change would make the process better.
On one hand, he said the measure might help candidates like himself who he contends are more committed to the principles of the party and less to being loyal to those who control the party structure. But Simcox said he also can foresee a way that this system also can be co-opted by the party leadership.
The measure does have an escape clause for recognized parties that don't happen to have any members in the Arizona Legislature: Their U.S. Senate nominees would continue to be chosen the way they are now through a primary race.
Stevens said even if he gets his wish and the nominating process is changed, it still might be difficult for Arizona lawmakers to keep their federal senators' feet to the fire. That goes back to the 17th Amendment and that federal requirement for direct election.
"Once they get elected to their six years, we (legislators) don't have the ability to call them back,' Stevens said.
I agree with this proposal.
IRS
FEDERAL RESERVE
Direct election of Senators
Time to turn back the clock..and stop those Progressives.
I believe the 17th amendment was a big mistake..if US Senators were beholden to the state legislatures..we wouldn’t have such runaway federal government..imho..
The 17th Amendment was a huge mistake and it should be repealed.
I believe electoral college votes should be split by the number of districts won with the two extra votes going to the overall winner. No more winner take all. Imagine democrats only picking up 28 votes in CA instead of 40.
Repeal the 17th bump!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
The founders of this great nation had it right the first time.
Cal is screwed either way. Look at what we have already elected.
Incorrect. Senators were chosen by their state legislatures for a 6 year term. Legislatures could not recall them at will.
Agree Jim !!
IRS
FEDERAL RESERVE
Direct election of Senators
Time to turn back the clock..and stop those Progressives.
Notice the bias in how they portray it as an attempt to strip voters of their rights? As if federal government under the current setup wasn't doing that on a vast scale already.
The legisl00tures could, apparently, successfully pressure the Sinators to resign, however. (Yes, I spelled it that way on purpose.)
At this point I am all in favor of political triage. Cut their star out of the flag and reduce them to territory status till they can get their s*it together. If they cannot get it together auction their land off to other states.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
I agree, absolutely. That year, along 1935 (Social Security Act), was one of the biggest reasons that liberty lost it's primacy to federal rule. It was a HUGE mistake which of course is never spoken about in our public schools. I would wager less than 1% of the graduating seniors in public school even are aware that US Senators were once elected by the state's respective legislatures, to say nothing of why it was a good idea then, and now.
There was no need to pressure a senator to resign. If he wasn't welcome anymore, he would know it without being told.
Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments
We consider the federal income tax to be destructive of our liberty, privacy, and prosperity. Therefore, we are working to bring about its complete elimination and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We recommend that the current system be replaced by an equitable, simple, noninvasive, visible, efficient tax, one that does not destroy or even infringe upon our economic privacy and liberty.
We also call for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Its enactment greatly reduced the power of our state legislatures and state governments – which are much closer to the people – and damaged our system of federalism.
I think that’s a excellent way to undo the damage of the 17th.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.