Yesterday in a rare joint session, subcommittees of the House and Senate Judiciary panels gathered to consider a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would require all vacant Senate seats to be filled via an election instead of by a governor’s appointment as dictated in the 17th amendment. The issue comes under consideration after last November’s election cycle resulted in four Senate vacancies–the most infamous of which was the Illinois seat that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) is accused of trying to sell.

While supporters say the proposed constitutional amendment is needed to fix “a constitutional anachronism” that is “a problem for our system of democracy,” others have expressed concerns:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) worried that, particularly in expensive states like California and New York, a short timeframe for a special election would make it nearly impossible for a non-wealthy candidate to raise enough cash to be competitive. The proposal, Nadler feared, “might tend to make the Senate, more than it is already, a body of millionaires and celebrities.”

Matthew Spalding, the director of the B.Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, argued that leaving Senate seats vacant while special elections were prepared would be unfair to those states with openings, which would be at a temporary disadvantage in the chamber.

What’s your take: Should all U.S. senators be elected?