The 17th Amendment, neo-secessionists and the Return of Federalism

With the passage of the Heath Care reform act, known as “Obamacare” to its critic, the members of the “Liberty Right” or the “Paleoconservatives” have been making increasing noise about the validity of secession as a check on the power of the central government.  This stems from the idea that the states no longer have any check on the powers of the Federal Government to intrude on their traditional domains. 

                Few people actually advocate that secessionism is a valid exercise of state power; most accept the results of the War Between the States as a final referendum on the rights of states to leave the Union short of its complete dissolution or devolution.  However, there still remains the very real question of who will keep the national government in its box when they attempt to step on the toes of traditional state functions. Some would say that that function belongs to the courts, but the courts are less inclined to become engrossed in “political questions” and will more often than not defer to the decisions of the U.S. Congress.

                The more moderate members of this movement have suggested a simple and elegant solution to this question, an idea which dates back to the original intent of the framers, namely the repeal of the 17^th Amendment mandating direct election of Senators.  There are three primary arguments in favor of this proposed action:

1.       The purpose of the state legislatures selecting Senators was considered to be very important to the founders.

2.       The wrong that direct election of senators was thought to correct has not and will not be alleviated.

3.       Repeal of the 17^th Amendment will increase interest in elections to state legislature which will increase the quality of representation and governance in the states.

In Federalist No. 62, James Madison said that the system proposed would give “to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems”.  The Founders saw the Senate as a way to represent the States as an entity and create a link through which the governments of the several states could act as a counterbalance to the majoritarian impulses of the people at large, represented by the House.  The intent was clear through most of Federalist 62, 63 and 64 that the Senators were not intended to be “super Representatives” and should be free from the burden of campaigning and pandering, instead being a wise and august body presenting a stable front both to the people and other nations.

The movement which culminated in the 17^th amendment sought to eliminate corruption and influence peddling in the selection of senators, William Randolph Hearst was crucial in this effort by publishing several articles detailing the corruption and vice of appointed senators. It is fairly clear that direct election has not alleviated this problem and may have even made it worse because of the millions of dollars required to mount a state-wide campaign, particularly in states with large markets like Florida.

In summary, the repeal of the 17^th amendment would likely not greatly the overall makeup of the Senate. Assuming that those legislatures which have split house control will appoint one Senator from each party (a traditional compromise) and that Nebraska’s unicameral, non-partisan legislature appoints one of each as well, the Democrats would actually gain 6 seats, owing mostly too large “Blue Dog” legislatures in Alabama and Mississippi and the loss of the Republican Senators in Maine.  However this would encourage in the engagement of the populace in the state legislature races and would likely, over the course of one or two election cycles, lead to a final normalization of both the “Blue Dog” phenomenon evident in the Deep South and the “New England Republicans” which has been ongoing for the last 20 years.  The minor cost of the loss of one house of directly elected legislator would be more than outweighed by the benefit of a body which represents the interests of the state as a whole in a truly Federalist fashion.

Gender, Race and Geography in the Florida Gubernatorial Race

                Florida Times-Union reporter Abel Harding reported today that GOP gubernatorial nominee Rick Scott has decided to ask Representative Jennifer Carroll, a African-American First Coast Lawmaker, to be his running mate in the general election. The article notes that Carroll is a good choice on its face, even when consideration of her voting record is not in play. As has often been the case with Republican executive politicians (and others running for office) in the last 20 years, there is a kneejerk reaction to indulge in the very “identity politics” they so abhor in their opponents. This phenomenon primarily occurs when the opponent is some flavor of minority themselves, in an effort to fight the perception of the “rich white guy” party. The most prominent example, is of course the selection of Sarah Palin by John McCain in 2008 in a clear effort to capitalize on the loss of Hillary Clinton in the primary. There are other examples, the recruiting of Alan Keyes to run against Obama for Senate in 2004 and the encouragement of First Coast Young Republicans President and African American Chris Nawiseki to run against Corrine Brown. Almost as puzzling, at least in the case of running mates, is the tendency of the Minority candidate to reciprocate by selecting an “old white guy” of their own, for every Sarah Palin there is a Joe Biden and for Jennifer Carroll, there is Alex Sink’s running mate Sen. Rod Smith. Both of these candidates come with benefits and detriments of their own outside of their genetic makeup.

                Rep. Carroll is an interesting choice for Scott and may present some unique challenges once one reaches past the obvious benefits. Carroll is well liked and experienced legislator. She is a 20-year U.S. Navy veteran and has a steady, if unremarkable legislative career in the House. She brings much needed legislative experience to the campaign of political neophyte Scott. She is also a resident of the First Coast one of two areas Scott needs to turn out big for him in November, the other being the heavily conservative and populous southwest which is where Scott keeps his own residence. The biggest problem, however, is one of geography, Scott is going to need heavy turnout for him in the “I-4 Corridor” which has rapidly become the key to Florida sought after by political strategists. Scott ignores this region at his own peril, Charlie Crist won the 2006 election by such a convincing margin in no small part by locking down the Corridor, Barack Obama did the same thing in 2008, running more ads in the Tampa and Orlando markets than any other city in the state.  Jennifer Carroll will not be the sweetener that Scott needs to win this crucial swing constituency that is already weary after he beat one of their own, Bill McCollum, in such a hard-fought primary.

                Alex Sink comes with a similar set of issues as Rick Scott, she is a relatively unknown political neophyte with a thin governmental resume and many years in a business which does not inspire the confidence of the masses (banking) with an institution has been mostly portrayed negatively as of late (Bank of America). She also picked a legislative running mate from North Florida, likely for similar reasons as Scott. Rod Smith is well known as the State Attorney who prosecuted Gainesville serial killer Danny Rolling he leveraged that career into a seat in the State Senate and two unsuccessful runs for Governor. Unlike Scott, however, Sink is well known and well liked in the corridor. Both she and her husband (Failed 2002 Gubernatorial Candidate Bill McBride) are civic leaders in the Tampa area and have an extensive network in Orlando through McBrides law firm, Holland and Knight.

The geographic problem with the Sink-Smith ticket seems to be the opposite of the Scott-Carroll campaign. Where Scott is strong in the Republican base regions of North and Southwest Florida but is weak in the I-4 corridor, the moderate Sink ticket is weaker in the traditional liberal strongholds of South Florida while holding an advantage in the swing areas. In summary, I believe both candidates could have made better selections to increase their prospects geographically, Scott could have selected a central Florida politician such as Tea Party darling Paula Dockery and Sink could have selected a South Florida grassroots favorite such as State Senator Dave Aronberg from Miami who just came in second in the Democratic Attorney General Primary.