Congressman Backs Bill to Repeal 17th Amendment, End Senatorial Elections
U.S. Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA-10) has cosponsored a joint resolution introduced this week that proposes repealing the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and returning the selection of U.S. Senators to state legislatures.
On June 25, 2026, Rep. Keith Self (R-TX-03) introduced H.J. Res. 198 in the House of Representatives. The measure, referred to the House Judiciary Committee, is cosponsored by Perry and seven other Republicans: Reps. Eric Burlison (MO-07), Andrew Clyde (GA-09), Paul Gosar (AZ-09), Andy Harris (MD-01), Clay Higgins (LA-03), Sheri Biggs (SC-03), and Michael Cloud (TX-27).
The resolution proposes a new constitutional amendment stating simply: “The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.” It includes a savings clause ensuring the change would not affect the election or term of any senator chosen before the amendment takes effect. Repeal would require two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by conventions in three-fourths of the states within a proposed 10-year window.
Historical Context
The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913 during the Progressive Era, replaced the original constitutional method under Article I, Section 3, in which state legislatures elected U.S. Senators. For the first 124 years of the republic, senators were chosen by state lawmakers, creating a direct link between the Senate and state governments. Supporters of repeal argue this structure made the Senate a deliberate check on federal power and a protector of state sovereignty, while the House represented the people directly.
Critics of the current system contend that direct popular election has turned Senate races into expensive, nationally focused contests dominated by big money, special interests, and candidates more attuned to Washington ambitions than state priorities. They say the change has contributed to the centralization of power in the federal government.
Proponents’ Arguments
In announcing the resolution, Self said the current system has produced “six-year politicians more focused on national ambitions and the institution of the U.S. Senate than on the states they serve.” He added that the Founders designed the Senate “to protect state sovereignty and act as a check on federal overreach,” and that repealing the amendment would “restore that constitutional balance.”
Cosponsor Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) called the 17th Amendment “arguably the most injurious amendment in history,” arguing that “big money has twisted our Senate races into circus acts.” Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) stated that the amendment “weakened that connection and shifted more power to Washington insiders and special interests.” Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) linked the change, along with the 16th Amendment, to the long-term growth of federal power and debt.
The introduction comes amid visible tensions between House and Senate Republicans over stalled legislation, including efforts to advance voter identification requirements, highlighting broader frustrations among some conservatives with the Senate’s institutional role and legislative pace.
Critics’ Perspective
Opponents describe the effort as an attempt to roll back more than a century of direct democracy. They note that pre-1913 Senate selections were often marred by deadlocks, lengthy vacancies, and allegations of corruption and influence-peddling within state legislatures. Direct election, they argue, made senators more accountable to voters and reduced the power of political machines and wealthy interests operating behind closed doors in state capitals.
Media coverage in Pennsylvania has framed Perry’s involvement as support for a plan that would “strip voters of their right to elect U.S. Senators.”
Outlook
H.J. Res. 198 faces steep odds. No serious legislative push to repeal the 17th Amendment has advanced in Congress in modern times, and any constitutional amendment requires supermajorities at both the federal and state levels. The resolution appears intended primarily to spark debate over federalism, the original constitutional design, and the Senate’s place in the federal system.
Perry, a consistent conservative voice in the House, has not issued a separate public statement on the measure beyond his cosponsorship. The effort underscores continued interest among some Republican lawmakers in structural changes aimed at strengthening state authority relative to Washington.
“Direct democracy” is like consuming grain alcohol. An alcoholic beverage, beer, wine, fermented beverages, or any liquor or mixed-drink, is consuming the same toxin but at a dose most adult livers can cope with for a large portion of their lives. But grain alcohol is like bears; bears will kill you, and direct democracy as we were warned by the Founders could kill our Republic and its Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. I support the repeal of the 17th Amendment, but I also believe there needs to be a repeal of the 22nd Amendment and write a new amendment to replace those two and to apply term qualifications and term limits across all three branches of the Federal Government. By that I mean specifically that I would limit any qualified individual who runs for the office of President and wins to any number of non-consecutive terms for which their qualification is intact, and only impose a restriction of serving two consecutive terms; I would limit Senators to 4 per state, nominated by governors and confirmed by legislatures accordingly with 1 senator chosen every 2 years, either odd-numbered or even-numbered based on the sequence in which each state entered the Union and senators to serve a single 8-year term; I would propose to adjust the House of Reps based on a 400 million majority-age population with one Rep per 200,000 citizens, 2,000 total Representatives, and 400 Congressional Districts that would be multi-state were ever population falls below 900,000 majority-age adults. The multi-state provision means the combined states within a single district must share voting for each Rep, and Reps would serve 5-year non-consecutive terms with one Rep elected from each of the 400 Districts every year. I would then also extend term limits to all but the Supreme Court justices, which would be set at 9 judges unless by three unanimous votesover a 90-day period, no exceptions for illness or other absence of any Senator or Rep during that duration or the voting is invalid, of both Houses of Congress on a measure to change the number of justices. Justices would be given a maximum of 15 years on the second highest court, down to 8 years on the lowest level court, and subject to force-ranking approved by Congress annually for promotion to the next higher court prior to the end of their terms at which time they are discharged from their position and duties on the court. I would limit the terms of management/leadership within the bureacracy to no more than 10 years, also force-ranked annually by Congress, from GS-12 and up. All accumulated time continuously spent, counted by weeks, employed by the Federal government, appointed to a position within the Federal government, elected to an office of the Federal government, or serving as an issue advocate, consultant or other direct service to any branch, commission, bureau or other office of the Federal government shall be considered disqualifying time for elective office and appointment to the Supreme Court, and must be offset by an equal time spent as a private citizen not associated with any part of the Federal government or entities with direct vested interests in Federal government policies, programs, or activities conducted to carry out any Federal responsibilities. Lastly, I would include a “sunset provision” to terminate all program or other federal expenditure implementing statutes, all bureaucratic regulations, all executive orders, and all court “precedents” (of course, past rulings made would still exist, but after sunset they would no longer have force of law, if to accomplish nothing else than make Congress do something about any issue or topic); a number of 20 years based on Thomas Jeffersons’ argument for the length of one generation seems appropriate. Effectively, force the Federal government to clean house at least once every 20 years. History from any century to the present is fine, but it is open to debate whether all politically inspired decrees and deals stand the test of time; none so far seem to even approach the level achieved by the Founders writing of the Constitution.