Electing all senators: Blagojevich lesson

by Mark Silva

It was corruption in the appointment of a U.S. senator from Illinois that led to the constitutional amendment requiring the election of U.S. senators.

And now Illinois corruption in the appointment of a replacement for a departing, elected senator -- in this case, the president of the United States, former Sen. Barack Obama -- is lending urgency to a new drive for the election of all senators in all cases.

With the impeached former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Sen. Roland Burris, and more recently Burris' admission that he had tried to help raise money for the ex-governor's campaign -- the Obama White House has suggested that Burris take this weekend to think about his own future.

A special election could be in the offing, if Burris heeds the call of many around him, including Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, to step down. Ad today, the Tribune has an essay by Sens. Russ Feingold and David Dreier explaining why Congress should start moving on their amendment to require elections in all cases.

Their proposed improvement on the 17th Amendment enacted on 1913 suggests simply this: "No person shall be a senator from a state unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

See their argument on electing all senators in the Tribune and here in the Swamp:

By Russ Feingold and David Dreier

When Illinois' own Barack Obama won the presidency last year, it had been nearly 50 years since a sitting senator had been elected to our nation's highest office. His election opened up two Senate seats--his own and Joe Biden's--and that number doubled when he selected some of his former colleagues to serve in his Cabinet. This left four governors with sole discretion to fill the vacancies, an anachronistic approach left over from the days before direct election of senators. While some of these appointments garnered more attention than others, they all were undemocratic, making clear the need for a change in the process.

The Senate appointment controversies of the last several months served as a reminder that, in some ways, little has changed since the direct election of senators was required by the 17th Amendment. Prior to the amendment's formal adoption in 1913, senators were selected by state legislatures. These selections were often subject to backroom maneuvering, politically motivated corruption, and sometimes even violence. According to historian George Haynes, a fight broke out in the legislative chamber of Missouri in 1905 as some members attempted to stop a ticking clock in order to prevent adjournment before an appointment had been made.

In the age of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the backroom dealing isn't staying in the backroom anymore. The people of Illinois know this all too well, as the scandal that led to Rod Blagojevich's impeachment as governor has laid bare the abuses that can happen when one person has the sole authority to appoint a U.S. senator. But even the Senate appointments in New York, Colorado, Delaware and New Hampshire-- at least, before Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) decided to stay in the Senate--shared a defining characteristic: these are decisions being made solely by the powerful, without the consent, or even the input, of the people.

The American people are outraged, and justifiably so. Their message in the last election was clear--they want a different way of doing business in Washington. But when it comes to filling vacancies in the Senate, all they're getting is more of the same.

The people deserve a voice in choosing the senators who represent them in Washington. An amendment to the Constitution calling for the direct election of all senators is the best way to give them that voice.

We do not take the notion of amending the Constitution lightly. Constitutional amendments are only appropriate in narrow circumstances, to protect or expand rights for our citizens or to improve the fundamental workings of the federal government. That is the spirit of the Bill of Rights, and that is our guiding principle. The time has come, however, to change the Constitution to protect the people's right to elect their senators.

Our proposed amendment is simple. It states: "No person shall be a senator from a state unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." While some states already have laws on the books requiring special elections to fill vacancies, all the states but five --Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon, Massachusetts and Alaska--give some sort of appointment power to the governor. Special elections certainly cost more than a gubernatorial appointment, but the cost of losing the public's confidence in Congress is too high to let this situation continue.

The events of the past few months have given this effort new momentum, with a bipartisan group of House and Senate members sponsoring our amendment. Change is never easy, but it is often necessary, as it was a century ago when the first round of reformers worked to bring Senate elections out of the statehouses and into the hands of the people. The time has come to finish the job and ensure that anyone who wants to represent the people must be elected by the people. Americans are more than ready to choose everyone who will represent them in Congress.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is the chairman of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee and Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) is the ranking member of the House Rules Committee.