Senate in the spotlight, with its odd history

 

This post was published in the Wilson Times Nov. 24, 2020

 

            The climactic runoff in Georgia for two U.S. Senate seats will likely determine partisan control of the Senate. If two Democrats win, that party will, with the vice president’s vote as Senate chair, give the Democratic Party control of that chamber. If a Republican wins one of the two seats, that party will maintain control of the Senate’s agenda.

            It might be time for a refresher course on U.S. Senate history and, perhaps, a reconsideration of the Senate’s structure. The 1789 U.S. Constitution’s Article II states: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof … .”

            That is how the Senate was structured for 124 years, until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. The new amendment changed how senators were elected, stating: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof.” This amendment was born out of the “Populist Movement,” aimed at making individual voters the center of political power.

            Originally, the Senate essentially represented the states, which were considered sovereign and nearly equal to the federal government. The balance of power James Madison and others developed gave half of Congress to the states and half to the people.

            The Seventeenth Amendment changed that balance of power, but the slice of power reserved for the states was consumed by the popular vote. State legislatures were left without representation in Washington. Most people, especially the Populists, thought that was as it should be, foreshadowing the 1960s slogan of “All power to the people.”

            In the 21^st century, some progressive politicians saw a major flaw in the selection of senators. They see the Senate as an amplifier of power of less populated states, each of whom is rewarded two U.S. senators, regardless of the state’s population. California, the most populace state, has no more clout in the Senate than Montana or Rhode Island. That seems to conflict with the Supreme Court’s 1964 ruling that congressional districts (reflecting voter population) must be roughly equal to comply with Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.

            Some conservatives, such as the late James J. Kilpatrick, argued that the Seventeenth Amendment was an unwarranted change to the constitutional structure because it took away state sovereignty and elected two legislative bodies from the same electorate. Liberals dislike the Senate for a different reason: it amplifies the clout of less-populated (and more conservative) states.

            The Senate’s selection structure, critics say, is unfair to the most populated states, with millions of unequally represented voters. That Senate is able to stop legislation from the more democratic-structured House of Representatives. Because the Electoral College is allocated from the number of members of Congress plus the two senators every state gets. In this century, several presidents have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College (the only count that counts).

Both sides can agree that something’s amiss, but as long as national politics remains sharply divided, the chances of reform are near zero.