By R.J. Morales | TX3DNews
Since 1913, Texans have elected their U.S. senators directly. A new resolution from Republican U.S. Rep. Keith Self would end that, returning the choice to state legislatures in Austin.
The 17th Amendment, ratified that year, requires U.S. senators to be elected by voters. Before it, state legislatures chose them. Self filed his measure June 25, in the middle of his re-election campaign, and it quickly drew a response from his Democratic challenger, Evan Hunt.
What Self Proposed
Self’s pitch is rooted in the framers’ original design: the U.S. House to represent the people, the Senate to represent the states.
“If senators are supposed to represent their states, then the states should choose them,” Self said in his announcement. “Repealing the 17th Amendment will restore that constitutional balance and make the Senate more accountable to the people of Texas and every other state in the union.”
The current system, Self argued, has produced “six-year politicians more focused on national ambitions” than on the states they serve. He called the resolution part of “a growing movement to revive federalism.”
Supporters of repeal argue direct election severed senators from their home states and fueled the growth of federal power at the states’ expense. Returning the choice to legislatures, they say, would force senators to answer to state interests again.
Eight Republicans signed on as cosponsors, including fellow Texan Michael Cloud (TX-27), along with Reps. Eric Burlison, Andrew Clyde, Paul Gosar, Andy Harris, Scott Perry, Clay Higgins and Sheri Biggs.
Cosponsor Clay Higgins called the 17th Amendment “arguably the most injurious amendment in history” and said “big money has twisted our Senate races into circus acts.”
What It Would Mean in Texas
In Texas, the resolution would take the choice of the state’s two U.S. senators away from voters and give it to the Legislature in Austin. Both current senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, are Republicans.
That shift would have immediate stakes. Cornyn’s seat is on the ballot this November, with Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico competing for it. Under Self’s resolution, that decision wouldn’t go to the state’s roughly 18 million registered voters but to a Legislature where Republicans control both chambers. Other Republican-led states are in a similar position: Republicans control 28 state legislatures to Democrats’ 18, with four split, according to Ballotpedia.
The resolution also leaves big questions open, including how legislatures would pick senators, whether sitting senators would finish their terms, and how a deadlocked legislature would fill a seat. Those aren’t just technicalities. Before 1913, the old system sometimes produced long deadlocks that left Senate seats empty, the very problem direct election was meant to solve.
A Steep Path Forward
Even if it had broad support, the path is steep. Repealing a constitutional amendment is deliberately difficult, requiring approval by two-thirds of the U.S. House, two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, and ratification by 38 of the 50 states.
Self’s resolution has not been introduced in the Senate and currently has no Democratic cosponsors. In practice, it has no clear path to becoming law.
Public Reaction
Self announced the resolution on social media, where it drew hundreds of comments, both for and against. Critics argued it would strip voters of their direct say in choosing senators, and some questioned the timing, tying it to the House-Senate dispute or Self’s re-election race. Supporters called it a return to states’ rights and the framers’ original intent. The comments reflect engagement on the post, not a scientific measure of opinion in the district.
Hunt Points to History
Self’s resolution quickly drew a response from his November opponent. Reached for comment, Evan Hunt, the Democratic nominee in TX-03, said the 17th Amendment was a fix for a broken system.
“The 17th Amendment didn’t appear out of nowhere. It was a response to a political system that had become dysfunctional and corrupt,” Hunt said. He argued Self is pushing repeal only “because he’s worried that Talarico will beat Paxton by popular vote.”
Hunt pointed to the era’s scandals, including Montana’s William A. Clark, who was accused of buying votes from state legislators to win a Senate seat. Reformers passed the amendment, Hunt said, “to mitigate corruption, end legislative gridlock, and make senators accountable to the people instead of political machines.”
He argued the same forces are at work today in a different form, pointing to the influence of wealthy donors on elected officials. “History doesn’t repeat itself exactly, but it often rhymes,” Hunt said. “If we don’t learn from the past, we’re more likely to repeat its mistakes.”
The Question for TX-03 Voters
For now, nothing changes. Texans will still go to the polls in November and choose between Paxton and Talarico, and a repeal wouldn’t affect that race or any senator currently in office.
What it leaves behind is a question for voters to answer: who should choose U.S. senators, the people or the legislatures?
TX3DNews reached out to Rep. Self’s office for comment but did not receive a response. This story will be updated if one is provided.
Support Local Journalism
TX3DNews is an independent, locally owned news organization covering the stories that matter across Collin County and Texas’ 3rd Congressional District. Your support helps us continue delivering fact-based local journalism, while advertising helps connect local businesses with our growing community.