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.
The passage of the 13th amendment turned Senators into Federal animals when they were designed to be State animals.
I support repeal.
Make that the 17th Amendment. sheesh...
“Repeal the 17th bump!!”
Can we have a twofer, the 16th needs to go.
“Rebellion is brewing!!”
I guess rebellion makes a better “battle cry” but it must be accompanied by revival (political and spiritual), without an increase in virtue any effort will fail.
This isn’t a bad idea if you want to get senators who are more beholden to state government than popular whims.
YEE-HAW!!!
Three cheers for the Arizona Federalist! (or Anti-Federalist!) (*)
This is a brilliant idea, as it doesn’t have to repeal the 17th Amendment.
John McCain hates it, because his rich wife and lobbyists buy his seat, and the Arizona GOP is too cheap to fund a decent candidate. McCain doesn’t give two poops about Arizona.
Even if the State legislators pick a liar who promises loyalty to the State, then falls in love with the national government and betrays his State, this effectively term limits him to one term!
(*) By today’s definition, a “Federalist” wants a balance of power between the national government and the individual States, and an “Anti-Federalist” wants the States to be superior in power to the national government. Right now, they are not in conflict at all, because they both believe that the national government has far too much power, taken at the expense of the individual States and the people.
How does this proposal differ from the selection of Dede in NY23 ?
Oregon gets to deal with SF, Nevada gets LA, and Arizona shall be blessed with San Diego. SacraMENTAL shall be bulldozed to the ground.
This man is right. The Founders knew the damage that could be done by a “royal” senator, using his incumbency to maintain his personal power for 6-year-term after 6-year-term. The amendment passed at the beginning of the Progressive period was a blatant power grab by members of the senate and needs to be repealed.
As I understand it, Diddly Dee was selected by NY GOP insiders, while the AZ Sinatorial candidate would be selected by GOP legisl00ters.
(Yeah, I know, my cynicism is showing. Repealing the 17th, as good an idea as it is, will be a risky gamble until we get better legislators by being more active on the state level.)
So do I.
I noticed that, too, although the author/editor seemed to me to be concerned about voting rights. It's something that advocates of this maneuver should NOT put in their brochures.
Yep the 17th was a dumb one for sure.
Because the original intent was for Congressmen to represent the current mood of the country (elections every 2 years, changing districts, states gaining/losing seats) while Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states (reserve funding/projects) and slow down majority opinion to be able to see the total impact ( elections every 6 years, each state gets 2-small/large, north/south, east/west).
Congressmen should be representative of the district and not thrust upon us (like Murtha’s wife will be). Senators should represent our state’s represenatives (Legislature).
With the way it is now, everyone direct elected, what is the difference in a Senator and Congressman?
“Time to turn back the clock...”
Only if turning back the clock means the instant demise of the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Both are mostly foreign owned, banking controlled organizations that have no Constitutional merit.
Twenty eight states have legislatures controlled by Democrats. Thirteen are controlled by Republicans. Eight are split. One is non-partisan. Do the math.
14th Amendment was the beginning of the end.
Good for him. It should be for the Several States to individually decide how they choose their Senators.
He’s asking for half-a-loaf, and often in politics such proposals can wind up making a bad situation worse.
His proposal does not do what’s needed and it gives too much power in the party to incumbents. If there is still a primary process, it should not be controlled by the legislators.
Instead of half-a-loaf, we need to return election of Senators to the state legislators; and that needs to include making them subject to recall by the state legislators as well.
It is a lie that such a change makes a Senatorial choice less a choice of “the people”.
Senators were intended to represent the State, as an entity, and as a government, which, as that government, was to have representation in the Federal Government.
“The people” elect their State legislators; and by that representation their legislators were to elect their Senators - to represent the State.
Direct election, and the campaign process of direct election, opened the seats of the Senators to mountains of money and influence beyond the territory - and without regard to the interests of - the State; much more so than was evident before their “direct” election.
That's the one part that sucks about repeal: the party angle. The crinimal DemocRAT legisl00tures need to be replaced, while the RINO elements in the Pubbie legisl00tures need to be weeded out and retired.
Read some history. The then-members of the Senate fiercely opposed the 17th Amendment. It passed the House year after year before the Senate finally caved in to overwhelming public pressure.
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.