Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes to amend the U.S. Constitution by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, which currently provides for direct election of U.S. Senators. If passed by the required two-thirds of both the House and Senate, it would be sent to the states for ratification. The proposal must be approved by conventions in three-fourths of the states within ten years to become part of the Constitution. It does not become effective unless the states complete that ratification process.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and is not subject to the President's veto, then sent to the states. This resolution specifically requires ratification by state conventions in three-fourths of the states within ten years.
HJ Res 198 proposes a constitutional amendment to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
Repeal would restore the pre-1913 arrangement in which state legislatures select U.S. Senators rather than direct popular election.
The resolution preserves the terms of Senators chosen before ratification and requires ratification by conventions in three-fourths of the states within ten years.
Major constitutional reversal with high controversy and rare precedent of successful nationwide repeal, making ratification by three‑fourths of states unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and legally precise proposal to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment: it contains clear operative language, an explicit ratification method and timeline, and a narrow transitional saving clause. Those elements constitute the core requirements for proposing a constitutional amendment.
Democratic accountability (direct elections) vs. state-legislature authority
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Democratic accountability (direct elections) vs. state-legislature authority
Strongly opposed.
Repealing the Seventeenth would reduce direct voter control over the Senate and weaken democratic accountability.
The change likely benefits state political machines and could enable partisan manipulation at the state level.
Cautious and skeptical.
Recognizes states' rights and constitutional-structure arguments, but worries about democratic legitimacy and practical problems.
Would seek procedural safeguards and a measured, evidence-based assessment before supporting such a fundamental change.
Generally supportive.
Views repeal as restoring the Framers' intent and strengthening state sovereignty and institutional checks on federal power.
Sees merit in shifting Senate selection to deliberative state bodies rather than nationalized popular campaigns.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Major constitutional reversal with high controversy and rare precedent of successful nationwide repeal, making ratification by three‑fourths of states unlikely.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Democratic accountability (direct elections) vs. state-legislature authority
Major constitutional reversal with high controversy and rare precedent of successful nationwide repeal, making ratification by three‑fourth…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and legally precise proposal to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment: it contains clear operative language, an explicit ratification method and timel…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.