In yesterday's Tribune, columnist Steve Chapman pointed to an astounding statistic: by the end of 2009, 27 percent of Americans will be represented by U.S. senators who didn't earn a single vote in a free election. That's because four of those 100 officials were appointed to fill seats vacated by a politician who switched jobs, including the president. With the impending retirement of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Florida) and the decision by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to leave her post this year to run for governor, two more appointees will make their way to Washington by year's end. As Chapman jokes, the nation's upper chamber "is ... well, mostly elected by the people."

But Chapman also noted a positive development. Next month, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear a lawsuit filed by labor lawyer, author, and former 5th Congressional District candidate Tom Geoghegan arguing that when a Senate vacancy occurs, any appointee may only serve for a short interim before an election must be held. Here's how we described the case back in February:

The plaintiffs claim that neither former Gov. Rod Blagojevich nor [Gov. Pat] Quinn issued a “writ of elections to fill senate vacancies” as required by the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Currently, Illinois follows a legal proviso in the amendment that allows the governor to “make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislatures may direct.” Geogeghan and his colleagues are not suggesting that Burris’ appointment was illegal—rather, it represents a temporary placeholder until the state could marshal the resources to hold a statewide election. (Geogeghan first laid out this argument in a New York Times op-ed published a few days after Burris’ appointment in January.)

Chapman writes that while the suit faces a tough road in appeals court, the Court has reversed more unlikely decisions before. "When in doubt," he adds, "it makes sense to respect the language and purpose of a constitutional provision."

Geoghgean (whose new website is here) is attacking the undemocratic nature of the Senate from another angle, as well. In this week's issue of The Nation, he makes a convincing case for "Busting the Filibuster," a cause he's fought since the mid-1990s. Here's his conclusion:

By the way, the abolitionists knew the Senate was their enemy, just as it is our enemy today. Let's hope these tactics work for us in getting rid of this last vestige of slavery: Senate Rule 22. What's painful is that we have to cross some of our most sainted senators. But unless we decide to just give up on the Republic, there's no way out. To save the Obama presidency, we may have to fight our heroes.