I would caution against a "forced" Champs rotation. We have that in the UK and the problem is that the region whose turn it is to host isn't always keen to do so. They will do it eventually but sometimes with little enthusiasm so the outcome is average, and you can feel that the "love" isn't in it.
Far better in my view to allocate Champs to clubs that are actually keen to host them, even if there is less rotation. You can always in parallel try and excite less-active regions to bid voluntarily, or favour them if they have bids.
This is a good point; there certainly are many clubs in the US that while nominally capable, might have strong reservations. To force an event upon them would risk animosity and burnout. Perhaps a coarser partition - say into four or five regions - might mitigate this, and give the smaller clubs more opportunities to band together to host the event. We haven't really gauged the pulse of clubs - to see how many are interested in holding these events, what those with reservations are missing - and if the federation can help provide that, e.g. technical expertise.
I dont see the point in having a hard and fast rule about a national champs rotation for the reasons stated. Rather I would give priority to those bids that are from a part of the country that hadn't seen a championships in a while.
I also really really like your comment about reaching out to clubs rather than waiting for bids to come in. Pick the clubs you think are capable of hosting and that you would like to see host and start a conversation with them.
...but I would suggest only do that after a bid deadline (3 years before?) reveals no bids because then favouritism and bias issues start to kick in.