Why America Should Repeal the 17th Amendment and Give the States Their Voice Back
OPINION
The United States of America – The framers of our Constitution weren’t building a pure democracy; they were building a balancing act. And they knew exactly what they were doing.
The original Constitution divided political power among different interests. The People elected the House of Representatives. State legislatures selected Senators. The Executive branch was headed by a President chosen through the Electoral College. Everybody had skin in the game. Everybody had a seat at the table. And nobody got all the power.
That arrangement wasn’t some accident buried in old parchment. It was deliberate.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution plainly stated that senators would be “chosen by the Legislature” of each state. According to James Madison in Federalist No. 62, appointment by state legislatures was designed to create a direct connection between the states and the federal government. He wrote that this method would “form a convenient link between the two systems.” The Senate was never intended to represent the passions of the public. The House already did that. The Senate represented the states themselves.
And that’s because the United States was formed by sovereign states entering into a union, not by Washington handing power down from on high.
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates spent weeks fighting over representation. Large states wanted population-based representation. Smaller states feared being steamrolled. The eventual Connecticut Compromise created two chambers, one representing the People and one representing the States. It was a compromise that helped save the convention from collapse. Benjamin Franklin himself urged concessions to preserve the union.
Madison argued repeatedly that the Senate’s structure would act as a stabilizing force. The upper chamber would provide experience and continuity while insulating the country from sudden swings in public opinion. The U.S. Senate’s own historical records note that senators were intentionally made older and selected by state legislatures to provide stability and restraint.
Then came 1913.
The Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally changed the arrangement by transferring the election of senators from state legislatures to popular vote. Supporters argued it would reduce corruption and legislative deadlocks. It certainly changed things, but it also removed the states themselves from direct representation in Washington. The National Constitution Center describes the amendment as the only major constitutional change affecting the structure of Congress since the Bill of Rights.
Since then, senators have become national politicians rather than ambassadors of their state governments. Their incentives changed. Governors and legislatures may protest federal mandates, but their senators often answer first to national donors, party leadership and television cameras.
That’s a very different system than the one the founders designed.
State governments today have no institutional voice inside Congress. They sue Washington. They lobby Washington. They beg Washington. But they no longer possess representation within Washington itself, which is exactly what the original Senate provided.
Supporters of the Seventeenth Amendment point to corruption scandals that occurred before 1913. Those problems were real. But replacing one flaw with another doesn’t necessarily count as progress, history is full of reforms that created new problems while solving old ones.
The Constitution was built on competing interests checking one another. The House represented the people. The Senate represented the states. The president represented the nation as a whole. It wasn’t complicated.
We’ve drifted far from that arrangement.
Today Washington treats states less like partners and more like administrative districts. Federal agencies dictate policy, Congress spends borrowed money with abandon, and senators spend more time chasing campaign cash than defending state sovereignty.
Maybe the old system wasn’t perfect. Nothing designed by human beings ever is. But the framers understood something modern politicians often forget… Power needs rivals.
Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment wouldn’t weaken democracy. It would restore federalism. It would give state governments a genuine stake in the game again and force Washington to remember that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.
We shouldn’t expect the people who benefit from the current arrangement to voluntarily surrender power. Congress is not likely to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, and senators certainly aren’t inclined to vote themselves out of their present status. The framers anticipated moments like this.
That’s why Article V of the Constitution gives the states another path, a convention for proposing amendments called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. If Americans truly want to restore federalism and return the states to their rightful place in the constitutional order, the answer probably won’t come from Washington. It’ll have to come from the states themselves, from the People. The people created the states, the states created the federal government, and sometimes it’s necessary to remind Washington who’s really supposed to be in charge.
For those who believe the time has come to restore the constitutional balance our founders envisioned, organizations like Convention of States Action are already leading the fight. Visit https://conventionofstates.com/, get informed, and get involved, because Washington isn’t going to limit itself unless the states and the people demand it.
Sources: Article I of the Constitution, James Madison’s Federalist No. 62, Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention, and historical material from the U.S. Senate and Library of Congress.
Fate, TX
Exposed: City of Fate Withholds Documents from Disclosure Without Permission From Attorney General
Ethics Investigation Raises New Questions About Fate’s Response to Open Records Request
Fate, TX — An ethics investigation into former Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn has uncovered evidence suggesting the City of Fate possessed at least one employee complaint against former Department of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard that it never disclosed in response to an Open Records Request submitted by Pipkins Reports.
The newly released investigative report also raises additional questions about whether City Manager Michael Kovacs fully described his receipt of employee complaint letters during his interview with the City’s outside investigator.
The documents establish the following timeline.
On November 25, 2025, Pipkins Reports submitted a Texas Public Information Act request seeking four categories of records related to Chief Lombard’s employment. Item No. 3 requested:
“Copy of any written complaints against Chief Lombard within the last 12 months prior to termination.”
On December 11, 2025, the City responded by producing Chief Lombard’s performance evaluations, termination documents, and the investigation initiated by City Manager Michael Kovacs. However, the city produced no employee complaint letters.
Because no complaint letters were produced, Pipkins Reports immediately contacted the City for clarification. The follow-up specifically noted that an anonymous employee complaint concerning Lombard had already become publicly known and requested that letter, along with any other anonymous or signed complaints concerning the former chief.
On December 16th, after Pipkins Reports challenged the City’s original response, Associate Attorney Paige Goins of Messer Fort acknowledged that one document—the anonymous letter already known to exist—had been inadvertently omitted and she sent that document to Pipkins Reports.
Then, on December 18, the City supplemented its response again by producing awards and commendations received by Lombard.
At the time, Pipkins Reports did not pursue the matter further. New information obtained through a subsequent ethics investigation has now renewed serious questions about whether the City’s response complied with the Texas Public Information Act.
Under the Texas Public Information Act, governmental bodies generally must either promptly produce responsive public records or seek a ruling from the Texas Attorney General if they believe the requested information falls within an exception to disclosure. If a governmental body fails to timely request an Attorney General ruling, the requested information is generally presumed to be public unless a compelling reason exists to withhold it. See Texas Government Code §§ 552.221, 552.301, and 552.302.
In this case, the City did not seek an Attorney General ruling authorizing its withholding of any documents.
Ethics Investigation Reveals New Information
Seven months later, in July of 2026, an unrelated ethics investigation would reveal information that casts new light on the City’s response.
The investigation originated from an ethics complaint filed by Fate resident Darcy Gildon, who alleged former Councilwoman Codi Chinn improperly involved herself in personnel matters by directing city employees to prepare written complaints concerning Chief Lombard.
Attorney Laura Mueller of Baker Robertson & O’Brien ultimately concluded that Chinn violated Section 2-309(10) of the city’s Code of Ethics by directing employees to provide information to her in writing. Pipkins Reports reported on that story … here.
More significant for purposes of this investigation, however, were the interviews conducted with the individuals involved.
According to the investigative report, Chinn told investigators that city employees approached her seeking assistance. She stated that she instructed them to put their concerns in writing so they could be presented to the City Council. Instead, according to her interview, the employees compiled a letter addressed to the entire City Council, after which she instructed them to deliver the letter to City Manager Michael Kovacs.
The investigative report summarizes Kovacs’ interview as follows:
“In my interview with Mr. Kovacs, we discussed his conversations with then Councilmember Chinn and the employees. Mr. Kovacs stated that he received the letter outlining the employee issues directly from an officer, but with the understanding that the information was given to him at the direction of Ms. Chinn. Mr. Kovacs also stated that Ms. Chinn kept him informed of the conversations she was having with the employees, but that he warned her against such communications.”
The report, however, does not discuss the original anonymous complaint letter that Pipkins Reports previously reported had been delivered to Kovacs through Councilwoman Chinn.
Taken together, the report’s statements—and its omissions—appear to indicate that Kovacs possessed at least two written employee complaints that would have been responsive to Pipkins Reports’ November 2025 Public Information Act request.
Two Letters, One Unanswered Question
Pipkins Reports has independently obtained copies of both complaint letters from sources outside City Hall. One anonymous letter begins with the words, “To Whom It May Concern.” The second letter is addressed to the entire City Council and was reportedly transmitted through Councilwoman Chinn.
Their existence, however, does not resolve whether the City complied with the Texas Public Information Act. The central question is whether the City properly disclosed responsive records in response to a lawful request.
As of this publication, the City still has not disclosed the separate complaint letter that Kovacs later acknowledged receiving directly from a police officer. By his own admission, City Manager Michael Kovacs is the person responsible for the dissemination of records per State Law, and therefore he is the person who should be held accountable.
If Kovacs’ statement to investigators is accurate, that second complaint letter would have existed when the City’s response to the November 2025 Public Information Act request was prepared.
A New Public Information Request
In light of the newly disclosed information, Pipkins Reports has submitted another Texas Public Information Act request seeking all written complaints concerning Chief Lombard, including the complaint letter Kovacs acknowledged receiving from an officer, the complaint letter transmitted through Councilwoman Chinn, and any additional written complaints in the City’s possession.
The request states, in part:
“On 11/25/2025, as part of Open Records Request #R001735-112525, I requested ‘Copy of any written complaints against Chief Lombard within the last 12 months prior to termination.’ The City failed to provide any responsive documents, even though it was publicly known that at least one anonymous complaint letter existed.
During the ethics investigation conducted by Baker Robertson & O’Brien, Michael Kovacs stated that he received a complaint letter from a police officer. This admission indicates the City possessed an additional responsive document that was not disclosed.
The City did not seek an Attorney General ruling authorizing the withholding of either complaint letter. This request seeks both documents, together with any additional written complaints concerning Chief Lombard.”
Whether the City ultimately produces the records—or explains why they were not disclosed nearly eight months ago—may determine whether this story ends as an administrative oversight or raises more significant questions regarding the City’s compliance with the Texas Public Information Act.
This remains an ongoing investigation. Pipkins Reports will continue to report on developments as additional records become available.
Fate Council Dropped Case Before Reviewing
Fate, TX — An ethics investigation commissioned by the City of Fate concluded that former Councilwoman Codi Chinn violated the City’s Code of Ethics before the City Council voted earlier this month to discontinue the matter, according to documents obtained by Pipkins Reports through an Open Records Request.
The report, prepared by attorney Laura Mueller of the law firm Baker, Robertson & O’Brien, found that the allegation against Chinn was “substantiated, but with mitigating factors.”
The Executive Summary states:
“After investigation, my determination is that allegation of a violation of the Ethics Code is substantiated, but with mitigating factors.”
The report concludes that Chinn violated Section 2-309(10) of the City’s Code of Ethics after directing City employees to provide their concerns to her in writing.
“After reviewing the Charter, the Code of Ethics, and reviewing all of the evidence, my conclusion is that Ms. Chinn violated Section 2-309(10) of the Code of Ethics when she directed employees to provide information to her in writing.”
Mueller also concluded that mitigating circumstances should be considered because Chinn immediately informed City Manager Michael Kovacs about the employee concerns and because the employees ultimately submitted their written complaints directly to the City.
Council Ends Investigation
The ethics complaint summary report was scheduled to appear on the July 6 City Council agenda for executive session discussion.
Instead of going into Executive Session, the Council waived deliberative privilege and discussed the matter in open session where they ultimately voted to discontinue the ethics proceedings and drop the matter, before being presented with the findings from Mueller.
The Council did not impose any sanction against Chinn.
The following day, Pipkins Reports requested a copy of the complaint and the investigative report, and received it through an Open Records Request.
Investigation Details
According to the report, investigators interviewed Chinn, Councilman Mark Harper, City Manager Michael Kovacs, and other witnesses.
Regarding the allegations, Mueller wrote:
“In my interview with Ms. Chinn and Mr. Harper, we discussed the allegation. I questioned Ms. Chinn about her conversations with city employees and with Mr. Kovacs.”
According to the report, Chinn stated that city employees approached her seeking assistance and that she intended to present their concerns to the City Manager after compiling the information.
However, the report states that employees instead prepared a letter addressed to the City Council. Chinn then instructed them to provide the letter directly to the City Manager.
The report also summarizes Kovacs’ account of the events.
“Mr. Kovacs stated that he received the letter outlining the employee issues directly from an officer, but with the understanding that the information was given to him at the direction of Ms. Chinn.”
Previously, it was reported that Chinn provided a copy of an, “anonymous letter”, that she claims was provided by DPS officers to her. Chinn further states that she sent the letter to Michael Kovacs … who then forwarded it on to the rest of the Council. This report also states that Kovacs told investigators he had warned Chinn against communicating with employees in that manner.
Pipkins Reports continues to investigate this aspect of the situation … as the conditions shed new light on the events that have transpired with regard to the termination of DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.
Meanwhile, the city council’s decision effectively ended the ethics proceeding against Chinn without imposing any sanction or issuing any formal determination of its own regarding the investigator’s findings. While the Council possessed the authority to discontinue the matter, the decision also brought the ethics process to a close despite an independent investigation concluding that a violation of the City’s Code of Ethics had occurred.
For the complainant, Darcy Gildon, the Council’s action marked the end of a process that resulted in no public accountability beyond the release of the investigative report which Pipkins Reports has now provided.
Fate, TX – Just hours after Fate city leaders submitted a list of pointed legal questions to the city’s law firm, Messer Fort notified the city it was resigning as legal counsel.
Now, Mayor Andrew Greenberg has released those unanswered questions to the public, saying residents deserve to see exactly what city officials were asking before the firm’s departure.
The release comes amid months of political turmoil inside Fate City Hall. Since the recall of former Councilwoman Codi Chinn, ethics complaints have been filed against Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Mark Hatley, while they and two other current council members now face recall elections of their own, backed by political opponents, including Councilwoman Ashley Rains, Councilman Allen Robbins, and former Councilman Scott Kelley, along with former Mayor David Billings.
Messer Fort had been hired by the City of Fate to serve as its contracted city attorney in place of employing a full-time in-house attorney. Jennifer Riche has been the attorney from that firm who has represented Fate directly. During Messer Fort’s tenure, the firm became deeply involved in several high-profile disputes, including ethics investigations, Public Information Act requests, and legal advice surrounding those matters.
According to a statement released by Greenberg, Messer Fort invited council members to submit any questions they had regarding the firm’s representation of the city. The first seven questions were submitted on July 9. Later that same day, the firm informed the city it would resign, effective July 20. Additional questions were submitted before the firm’s departure, but Greenberg said Messer Fort has not responded.
“As I mentioned during today’s City Council meeting,” Greenberg wrote. “I believe transparency is important. In that spirit, I am sharing the questions exactly as they were submitted so our residents can see what information was being requested and judge for themselves.“
The questions cover several issues that have divided the city over the past year, including Messer Fort’s handling of Texas Attorney General rulings on open records requests, the legal basis for redactions made under the Texas Public Information Act, ethics investigations involving elected officials, the firm’s analysis of potential Texas Open Meetings Act issues, and the use of city legal resources in matters questioned by council members. They also seek documentation supporting legal conclusions that influenced city decisions and ethics proceedings.
Rather than releasing only selected excerpts, Greenberg published the complete list of questions submitted to Messer Fort. The documents allow residents to review the requests in full and draw their own conclusions regarding the issues council members wanted addressed before the firm’s resignation.
Editor’s Note: The questions were originally posted as images on Facebook, making them difficult to read and appearing out of sequence. Pipkins Reports reorganized the pages, enhanced readability where necessary, and compiled them into a single PDF so readers can review the complete document in its proper order.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login