GOP Plan Would End the Direct Election of US Senators. Here's How

A Republican resolution would repeal the 17th Amendment and return the selection of U.S. senators to state legislatures.

A Republican proposal introduced in the House would repeal the 17th Amendment and end voters’ constitutional right to elect U.S. senators directly.

Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) introduced House Joint Resolution 198 on June 25. The proposal would repeal the 17th Amendment, which requires each state’s voters to elect two senators to six-year terms. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and has not yet received a committee vote.

The measure would return the selection of senators to state legislatures, restoring the system used before 1913 and substantially changing whom senators answer to when making decisions in Washington.

The resolution has nine Republican co-sponsors: Reps. Sheri Biggs of South Carolina, Michael Cloud of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Andy Harris of Maryland, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Eric Burlison of Missouri, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Victoria Spartz of Indiana.

Self argues that direct elections made senators more responsive to Washington political interests than to state governments. He said allowing state legislators to choose senators would give states a stronger voice in federal decisions and restore the division intended by the Constitution’s framers.

“The current system has given us six-year politicians more focused on national ambitions and the institution of the U.S. Senate than on the states they serve,” Self said in a June 25 statement. “Our Founding Fathers designed the Senate to protect state sovereignty and act as a check on federal overreach. If senators are supposed to represent their states, then the states should choose them.

"Repealing the 17th Amendment will restore that constitutional balance and make the Senate more accountable to the people of Texas and every other state in the union.”

The proposal is a constitutional amendment, not an ordinary bill. It would require approval from two-thirds of both the House and Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states. The president has no role in approving or vetoing a constitutional amendment.

Who Is Keith Self?

Rep. Self represents Texas’ 3rd Congressional District and began serving in the House of Representatives in 2023, and is currently in his second term.

He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and spent approximately 25 years in the Army before retiring as a lieutenant colonel.

After leaving active military service, Self became the county judge of Collin County, Texas. Self served three terms and left the position in 2018.

His proposal reflects a longstanding argument that the Senate was designed to represent state governments while the House represented voters more directly.

James Madison wrote that legislative appointment would give state governments a role in forming the federal government, while George Mason viewed it as a means for states to defend their authority against federal encroachment.

Why Americans Began Electing Senators

Article I of the original Constitution directed each state legislature to choose two U.S. senators.

The framers gave senators six-year terms and divided the seats into three classes, creating a chamber insulated from rapid changes in public opinion.

Problems developed as political parties, wealthy industrial interests, and state political machines competed for control of Senate appointments. Legislatures sometimes became deadlocked and failed to select anyone.

In 1895, Delaware lawmakers took 217 ballots over 114 days without resolving a Senate election, leaving the state without full Senate representation for two years. Reformers also argued that bribery and political influence allowed wealthy interests to control Senate appointments.

A Senate investigation into corruption surrounding the legislative election of Illinois Sen. William Lorimer added momentum to the direct-election movement.

States began experimenting with systems that allowed voters to identify their preferred Senate candidates while candidates for the legislature promised to respect those results. By 1912, as many as 29 states effectively used primaries or general elections to guide Senate selections.

Congress proposed the 17th Amendment in 1912, and the necessary three-fourths of the states ratified it on April 8, 1913. The amendment replaced “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.”

It also established procedures for filling vacancies through special elections while allowing legislatures to authorize temporary gubernatorial appointments.

How Repeal Could Change Elections and Government

Repeal would remove Senate candidates from statewide general election ballots and place the decision in the hands of state lawmakers.

Voters could still influence the outcome by electing legislators, but they would no longer cast a direct vote for a senator. Senators would have a strong incentive to satisfy the legislators responsible for selecting them.

Supporters believe that arrangement would force senators to defend state authority, resist federal mandates and pay closer attention to state governments. It could also reduce the need for expensive statewide Senate campaigns.

The change would transfer political pressure rather than eliminate it. Interest groups, donors and party organizations could concentrate their efforts on a smaller number of state lawmakers.

Senate selections could become central issues in state legislative races, causing campaigns for offices responsible for education, roads and state budgets to focus increasingly on national politics.

“As originally envisioned by our Framers, the Senate was a key bulwark of federalism: It was meant to give the states a check on the federal government and moderate the passions of the people," Rep. Burlison said in a statement. "Therefore, it’s no coincidence that over the last century, Washington has concentrated more power in itself and buried the country in debt.

"If we're serious about reining in federal power and spending, we should be willing to reconsider the change that, together with the 16th Amendment, has helped fuel its growth more than any other."

Research has challenged the assumption that repeal would strengthen practical federalism. National political parties already exercise significant influence over state legislative elections. Turning those legislatures into the bodies that select senators could make state races even more dependent on national party disputes.

Divided state governments could also revive the deadlocks that helped produce the 17th Amendment. If different parties controlled the two legislative chambers and could not agree on a candidate, a Senate seat could remain vacant unless a new amendment or state law provided a workable temporary process.

The proposal would also produce immediate partisan consequences. A party controlling a state legislature could select both senators even if another party’s Senate candidate won a statewide popular vote. Changes in control of statehouses would therefore affect not only state policy but the future composition of the U.S. Senate.

H.J. Res. 198 faces an exceptionally difficult path. Its adoption would require many lawmakers and state legislatures to approve the elimination of an electoral power Americans have exercised for more than a century.

The debate nevertheless reaches beyond one resolution: It asks whether senators should answer directly to millions of voters, or to the smaller group of state lawmakers empowered to appoint them.