Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate

Changes to chart

Which changes made the chart difficult to read?

1. I combined the 1st & second tie-breakers into a single column, which is how the other seniority articles have it listed.
2. I added links to the census articles.
3. I changed "Former Representative" to "Former member of the U.S. House of Representatives."
4. I changed "Former Governor" to "Former governor."
5. I changed "Former Senator" to "Former U.S. Senator."

—GoldRingChip

I'm looking at the two versions side-by-side right now. Regarding change #1, I think that there's benefit in retaining two columns for the first and second tie breakers; it makes it crystal clear when there was a second tie breaker and doesn't force me to scan the text for a semicolon. Maybe the other seniority articles need improvement as well. Regarding change #3, that had the effect of nearly tripling the length of that frequently used text in the table but did not add any actual information. It's just tiring to see that long text repeatedly frequently, and because there's only one office of "representative" that has an impact on Senate seniority, there's no ambiguity if we continue to use a shortened form. Same for Senator; it's not like we have to distinguish between U.S. Senator and Chilean Senator for purposes of this table. No problem with changes #2 and #4. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Historical rank

Am I alone in thinking that adding the historical rank of Senators is completely irrelevant to the point of the table. Furthermore putting it in the first column gives it way too much prominence and looks confusing Conservative Thinker (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it sees too prominent in the left (first) column. Perhaps it should be moved to the last column, or maybe just switched with the first column?

How about this (below), which moves it to the second column, makes the title smaller, and removes the heading format (bold)?—GoldRingChip 17:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Current rank	Historical rank	Senator	Seniority date	First tie-breaker	Second tie-breaker	Committee and leadership positions
1	1692	Patrick Leahy (D-VT)	January 3, 1975			Ranking Member: Judiciary
2	1708	Orrin Hatch (R-UT)	January 3, 1977			President pro tempore Chairman: Finance
3	1719	Thad Cochran (R-MS)	December 27, 1978			Chairman: Appropriations
4	1745	Chuck Grassley (R-IA)	January 3, 1981			Chairman: Judiciary
5	1766	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	January 3, 1985			Majority Leader
6	1773	Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)	January 3, 1987	Former Representative (10 years)		Ranking Member: Appropriations
7	1775	Richard Shelby (R-AL)		Former Representative (8 years)		Chairman: Banking

References

I'd say last column or just exclude it altogether. It is the least important thing on the chart. Is there even a practical purpose for this ranking? I can't imagine La Follette coming back from the grave to finally get a chairmanship... Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would remove it altogether as I consider it irrelevant to the table. If however, others want to keep it I would suggest that it should be the last column but if not the change suggested above with it being the second column is a distinct improvement. Conservative Thinker (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Having it in the second column makes sense to me. I think we'd lose something if we removed it altogether. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The purpose for my adding it (yes, it was me) was two-fold: (1) for the sake of showing relative seniority for some members, especially the most senior ones. As you see from the sample above, there were 83 Senators between Patrick Leahy and Richard Shelby; and (2) to compare one Congress's list with another's. For example, the list of Current Senators compared to those in the 113th Congress. —GoldRingChip 15:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason I would move to the second column, and not the end (far right side) is: it would look weird on the right side. In the second column it goes nicely alongside the "Current rank."—GoldRingChip 15:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

While I don't have an opinion on whether the historical rank should be removed or not, I think if it stays it should be explained what it means. I don't think the meaning is obvious (it doesn't help that the numbers might be interpreted as year numbers), I certainly didn't understand it directly and had to look at at the respective lists for earlier senates to confirm what the intended meaning of "historical rank" was. 2001:4DD7:8B6F:0:5EC5:D4FF:FE90:14C9 (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, good point. I'll work on it.—GoldRingChip 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders is not a Democratic Senator

Sanders making a statement of party affiliation as a Democratic presidential candidate is a separate issue from his party affiliation in the Senate, where he continues to be an independent. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Correct. That's why he's listed in this article as an Independent. —GoldRingChip 17:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There have been two different edits recently changing his listing to Democratic. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we still need a note on this page to indicate that, in the past, he was sometimes confused as a Democrat? Nobody doubts that he's currently an Independent.—GoldRingChip 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I won't argue if you want to remove it again. And I was the anon IP who created the footnote and started the discussion in 2016. JTRH (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I will removed it. It was necessary back in 2016 when editors kept revert-warring over Bernie's party.—GoldRingChip 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

etymology

what is the etymology of "ranking member", this needs to be included68.148.186.93 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The ranking member is the person in the minority party who would be the committee chair if the majority changed. 67.197.243.87 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders did not change parties. He is still an independent. He has always voted with the Democrats in Congress for organizational purposes. He did not change parties just because he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. This needs to be reverted. 67.197.213.222 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

December 2017 upcoming changes

Luther Strange remains in office until his successor is sworn in, not when the polls close in Alabama. Al Franken is resigning, but the effective date has not been announced. Neither of their listings should change until circumstances actually change. JTRH (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Smith & Jones

Shouldn't we wait until they're both sworn in at Noon EST, before we add them to this article & remove Luther Strange? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug Jones's seniority

Does the seniority for Doug Jones begin on his election, certification, or oath? Please support answer with citation. As of 17:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC), the Senate Seniority page does not yet include him but we should assume that will be definitive when it does.—GoldRingChip 17:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Outgoing Senators resigning early

Is it still possible for an outgoing Senator to resign and allow the Senator-elect to be appointed early to get a head start on seniority? Thad Cochran seems to be the only such beneficiary on the current list (although it's no longer relevant for him) - has there been a rule change not mentioned here? Timrollpickering 19:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• The senator-elect can still take office early to get advantageous office space, but a 1980s rules change forbids the senator-elect from getting a seniority advantage. The most recent case of this is John Cornyn from Texas; Phil Gramm resigned early so that he could take office in December after his election, but he didn't get a seniority advantage over other senators elected in 2002, like Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander. It happened with John Kerry as well back in 1985, after Paul Tsongas resigned a day early. (Edit: the rule change is mentioned in a footnote from Cornyn on the list) Davey2116 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Tina Smith's assumption of seat. January 2 or 3?

When exactly did Smith become US Senator? She didn't resign as Minnesota lieutenant governor until mid-night (Jan 3) & therefore couldn't have become US Senator before then. This dispute is also ocurring at the Tina Smith article. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The official Senate listing has both Doug Jones and Tina Smith taking office on January 3 (although the updaters of that list are not prone to error; Luther Strange's end date is listed as January 3, 2015, not 2018). Davey2116 (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of United States Senators in the 115th Congress by seniority#Senators > 100?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of United States Senators in the 115th Congress by seniority#Senators > 100?. —GoldRingChip 20:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Most junior senior senator

In the new Congress this will be Senator Cortez Masto rather than Senator Cassidy. Is this already reflected in draft anywhere? LE (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Senator Kyl is leaving at the end of the year so in the new congress the Most junior senior senator will either be Sinema or Kyls replacement if appointed before Jan 3 עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point, but as I've said before, I personally feel that this is a very trivial detail. Being the senior senator from your state no longer has the distinction that it used to. Overall seniority is much more important. JTRH (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

True buts it's only a minor note so keep it עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the most junior senior (and the most senior junior) are very trivial. In fact, I'm not sure it has any distinction anywhere outside of this article. Is it really worth keeping or is it just trivia-bait? —GoldRingChip 17:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

it doesn't but it has been there since the start of the page over 10 years ago and it is just a minor note no reason to delete it. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it. LE (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sinema vs. McSally

Apparently it will be Sinema who gets to be senior even though it has just been announced that McSally will replace Kyl: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/martha-mcsally-arizona-senate/ LE (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

actually it will be McSally at it goes by date of appointment which would be the day Kyl resigns עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It will be whomever is qualified. Unless she resigns, McSally will be a member of the U.S. House of Representatives until January 3, which disqualifies her from serving in the Senate. —GoldRingChip 16:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

you are correct so sinema will be senior עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The article says they will both be sworn in on Jan. 3, with Sinema first, so she will be senior. JTRH (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It does say that, but an oath does not make a Senator. —GoldRingChip 18:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In this article, the governor explicitly says that Sinema will be senior because she will be sworn in first. https://www.apnews.com/cb8eee21e5484e31a5e042dcbadc6e52 JTRH (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

He does say that, but he does not decide seniority. —GoldRingChip 13:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I assume he has been advised by those who do. Are you suggesting that these news reports are inaccurate or uninformed? JTRH (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Arizona Republic: In addition to the fact that seniority in this case is explicitly determined by which one is sworn in first, Sinema has been in the House longer than McSally, so she’d win the tiebreaker. JTRH (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Seniority is based on beginning of service, not on oaths or declarations. It's when McNally's appointment is effective and when she qualifies. We'll have to see when her term in the Senate actually does begin. If, as supposed by some, her term begins Jan 3 at noon, then the tie-breaker (length of time in US House) would be used. If her term begins sooner (because she resigns her seat and is appointed before noon Jan 3), then she gets seniority. There are some other permutations that might occur as well. But it's not enough for a Governor to declare seniority, or for the Senator herself. Let's wait and see what happens instead of speculating when there are too many variables. The definitive list will be here on the Senate website anyway. I am a patient editor. —GoldRingChip 17:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a specific description of how it’s going to work. JTRH (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC) ≤https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/arizona-governor-appoint-martha-mcsally-mccains-senate-seat

The article actually gives no specific description of how it’s going to work. Just that the governor says it’s going to happen. No description of "how." —GoldRingChip 17:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The governor appoints McSally after Sinema is sworn in. He controls the timing of the appointment. JTRH (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it could happen that way, but the citation does not say that he will do it that way. —GoldRingChip 16:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

“Sinema will be sworn in first.” JTRH (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Result

The oath was irrelevant. McSally's seniority is based on her shorter service in the U.S. House. —GoldRingChip 12:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If McSally's appointment had been effective before Sinema was sworn in, she would have been the senior senator. That was the whole point of not filling the vacancy as soon as Kyl resigned. JTRH (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but the appointment was effective on Jan 3, regardless of what HOUR on that day. That's all. The appointment was effective on January 3, but the Governor can't decide when a Senator will say an oath. —GoldRingChip 13:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Next Congress

We can build the list for the "Next" Congress at Draft:Seniority in the United States Senate. —GoldRingChip 18:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There already exists for many years the page Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Senate seniority table sandbox which is used for exactly that purpose, so this new draft page is actually superflous. -- fdewaele, 20 December 2018, 11:50 CET.

Great! I'll redirect the Draft article to the WPUSC article. —GoldRingChip 17:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

“Former representative” takes up a lot less room in the chart than “Former member of the U.S. House of Representatives,” and there’s no ambiguity as to its meaning, because service in a state legislature isn’t relevant to Congressional seniority. JTRH (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

John Cornyn

The current version of the Senate's historical membership list: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf has Cornyn taking office on December 2, 2002, with seniority from that date and not from January 3, 2003. It is indisputably the case that he took office on Dec. 2; the issue is that, for years, this article has maintained that he didn't get seniority until Jan. 3 because of the 1980 Rules Committee policy. Either his seniority has been retroactively increased or this article has been wrong all along. Either way, it needs to be changed, but I wanted to explain the reasoning before getting into an edit war. JTRH (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess they must have. I'd wait until the Senate issues an updated list with all of this year's freshmen, to confirm for sure. Sbb618 (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cornyn's seniority dates back to Dec 2, 2002, but his ability to get preferential office space does not. A note should be included in this article to that effect. The Senate has issued an updated list with all of this year (2019)'s freshman now. —GoldRingChip 12:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I see only 99 members

Today (Jan. 3, 2019) new members have been added at start of 116th Congress. "Current rank" is only running from 1 through 99; please fix or, if it can't be fixed right now, insert an explanation. Carlm0404 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Senator-elect Scott of Florida will be sworn in on January 8, after his term as governor ends. There’s a vacancy for five days.JTRH (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. He'd go into that #100 slot; I don't know why he chose to delay entrance in favor of completing governor term. Carlm0404 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone has to be governor of Florida. JTRH (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

What happens if the Florida governorship becomes vacant during a term? Three governors of Delaware each left with less than a month left, in order to make timely start of a term in US Congress. Carlm0404 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Lieutenant Governor would become Governor for five days, but Scott chose not to do that. JTRH (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Those 3 Delaware governors were J. Caleb Boggs (became Senator in 1961), Mike Castle (became Representative in 1993), Tom Carper (became Senator in 2001). They were each succeeded by the lt. gov. Carlm0404 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If Senator-elect Scott had joined on Jan. 3, he'd be just ahead of Mitt Romney in seniority because of longer service as governor, right? Carlm0404 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes -- fdewaele 5 January 2019, 23:25 CET

I think I need to restate my request to explain there being less than 100 members, even though I have seen plenty of publicity for the current situation: one of the incumbent Georgia senators, who's facing a runoff election in search for re-election, reached the end of old term before the runoff could happen. Carlm0404 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't see much point. Senate vacancies occur not infrequently and it shouldn't be that unusual that there is one at the moment. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"Senior senator from Georgia"

I was wondering whether it would be accurate to describe Sen. Kelly Loeffler as the senior senator from Georgia at the beginning of the 117th Congress, as Sen. Perdue's seat will be vacant pending his runoff. I've sent off an email to the Senate Historian, but that would obviously be original research. If anyone has any sources that shed light on this, please let me know.

Sdrqaz (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• The real problem is that "senior" and "junior" are just casual meanings without formal definitions. Having said that, of course, seniority itself is a mere casual term that has no legal basis, just in custom. Finally… one could ask if Jon Kyl was senior or junior back in 2018. And yes, asking the senate historian would be WP:OR. Sorry for the non-answer. —GoldRingChip 02:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes. Much of the Senate's conventions and customs aren't based in law by their very nature, such as the blue slip process and the old convention of confirming current (or former) senators to the Cabinet unanimously. Regarding Sen. Kyl, GoldRingChip, I thought that he was clearly the junior senator, as he was serving with Sen. Flake, whose term began earlier than Sen. Kyl's. Prior service only comes into play when senators are sworn in at the same time (unlike seniority in the House). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Kyl was the junior senator when he returned, yes. But he had retired and left the Senate for some time before McCain's death. JTRH (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I know, but GoldRingChip was talking about in 2018. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, you lose seniority when you retire and return. Lautenberg, Kyl, Dan Coats, Slade Gorton, etc. JTRH (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Seniority used to be far more important than it is now. I don’t think either seat will be considered “vacant” in a way that constitutes a break in service, so I don’t think there’s any way Loeffler would end up as senior to Perdue. If Loeffler wins and Perdue loses, then obviously she’s senior to Ossoff. JTRH (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, Sen. Loeffler's seat won't be vacant in the near future, since she'll continue serving until Warnock is sworn in (if she loses reelection). Since seniority for committee assignments etc are usually decided by the respective conference, Sen. McConnell will probably allow Sen. Perdue to keep seniority for most important purposes. However, I doubt that the official Senate list of senators will ignore that lapse in service. We'll just have to see after the election. If both Republicans are reelected, I think Sen. Loeffler will be de jure more senior than Sen. Perdue. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, (1) I'm not sure when Loeffler's appointment expires. If it's "upon the election of a successor," then the special election term of service for that seat (whether it's her term or Warnock's) begins at the same time as the term of service for the winner of the runoff for the Perdue seat, in which case if both Loeffler and Perdue win, they would not change seniority in relation to each other. (2) I have no idea how the Senate would handle this kind of a short break in service. The only thing I know of that is remotely relevant as a precedent is Kent Conrad's (North Dakota) seat switch in 1992 - he declined to run for re-election to the seat he held, but then the other Senator (Quentin Burdick) died and, after Conrad's successor in one seat was elected, Conrad was chosen to replace Burdick in a special election for the other seat. Conrad's service is not considered to have been interrupted, because he never left office. There are several ways that Perdue's service would be considered unbroken - the Governor could appoint *him* to a three-day term so that he wouldn't leave office between noon on the 3rd and the swearing-in following the runoff election; McConnell could make a unanimous consent request that he not be considered to have left office; and there are probably other ways to do it. Without a definitive answer, I don't think we should change anything. (On a related note, if Ossoff and Warnock both win, Ossoff will be senior because the absolute final tiebreaker is alphabetical order.) JTRH (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@JTRH: Well, under the Seventeenth, temporary appointments are until the people fill the vacancies by election. I personally doubt that Gov. Kemp would appoint Sen. Perdue on January 3 due to their animosity at the moment. It's certainly possible, but the Governor's not made any indication yet. While Sen. McConnell could probably do that unanimous consent request, it's also unprecedented and probably in violation of the Twentieth Amendment. If we look at recent history, Sen. Frank Lautenberg had a break in his service between 2001 and 2003 and had been lured back to the Senate with a promise that his seniority would be restored by Democratic leader Tom Daschle, but that didn't come to pass. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

SdrqazSome appointments are also time-limited by state law. I don't know what the Georgia law is. Even if Kemp and Perdue don't like each other, it serves the state's interest for the senator not to lose his seniority because of a four-day break in his service. The Senate makes its own rules, so they could certainly vote to consider his service uninterrupted if they chose to do so. As to the 20th Amendment, Perdue's current term absolutely ends on Jan. 3. I meant that he could be appointed for a term of a few days between noon and Jan. 3 and the swearing-in of the winner of the runoff election, whether that's himself or Ossoff. I think the short answer is "we don't really know." Hopefully, the Ga. media will do some reporting on this. You've certainly raised an interesting question. JTRH (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, I have never heard of Senate appointments being time-limited under state law. State law is unable to circumvent the Constitution. Appointments are time-limited in the sense that they only last until a successor is elected in a special (or regular) election, yes, but I have never heard of an appointment lasting (for example) a year before the appointee is automatically kicked out of office without a successor. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz"Georgia Code: § 21-2-542. Special election for United States senator vacancy; temporary appointment by Governor

Whenever a vacancy shall occur in the representation of this state in the Senate of the United States, such vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term by the vote of the electors of the state at a special election to be ::::::::held at the time of the next November state-wide general election, occurring at least 40 days after the occurrence of such vacancy; and it shall be the duty of the Governor to issue his or her proclamation for such ::::::::election. Until such time as the vacancy shall be filled by an election as provided in this Code section, the Governor may make a temporary appointment to fill such vacancy."

You raise a really good point. Perdue's term expires at noon on January 3 (which raises the question of why the state schedules runoffs after the new Congress has convened). Loeffler's appointment expires "until the vacancy shall be filled by an election." So theoretically, she will be in office between the 3rd and the election a couple of days later, and he won't. The issue is whether he will lose seniority because he's out for a couple of days. I tend to think not, but it's a very good question.

As far as the general issue of gubernatorial appointments, the 17th Amendment says the legislature may empower the executive to make a temporary appointment. They don't have to. Oregon, for example, requires the vacancy to remain until filled by a special election. Alaska repealed the governor's appointment power after Frank Murkowski filled his own vacancy by appointing his daughter. The legislature can put conditions on the appointment - for example, some states require the governor to appoint someone of the same party as the previous senator, or choose from a list provided by the previous senator's party (which is the case in Wyoming). Massachusetts time limits the appointment in the sense that the special election has to be held within a short period after the vacancy occurs (for example, Scott Brown's election to the Kennedy seat, and Ed Markey's election to the Kerry seat), rather than waiting until the next biennial regular election is held. That was what I meant by time limit. JTRH (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

JTRH, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the bizarre timing is because election law requires "time for overseas voters to return ballots" for federal elections. Something I've learned today! As for the other states, I was aware of the situation there, but I didn't think it was relevant since we were talking about Georgia. I now understand what you meant by "time limit". Sdrqaz (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • • begin Carlm0404 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I notice, above, "if she loses reelection" regarding Kelly Loeffler. She is currently an appointed (not elected) Senator, so what I quoted should be "if she loses the runoff".

I see "Clearly, you lose seniority when you retire and return. Lautenberg, Kyl, Dan Coats, Slade Gorton, etc." Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey each left the Senate then returned by being elected to the respective state's other Senate seat. Former Senator and VP Walter Mondale came out of retirement to run after Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, but Mondale lost that election.

What if Norm Coleman, who got in court fight regarding re-election in Minnesota in 2008 and had to cease as Senator as old term expired, had prevailed in such fight? That didn't happen; he eventually conceded loss, and Al Franken joined the Senate 6 months late. Somewhere on talk here at Wikipedia it's said the governor of Georgia can NOT make temporary appointment at start of new term, so Perdue faces service interruption even if he wins runoff.

• • • • end Carlm0404 (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

In 1957, special election was needed after death of U.S, Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin. The governor could not fill the vacancy. Carlm0404 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "Committee and leadership positions" column

Please note that there is a discussion occurring here regarding whether the column should have been removed.

Sdrqaz (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The situation of 2007 is not a good example in Determining length of seniority

The situation of 2007 is a not complicated example in Determining length of seniority. It only has Former House members and the rank of population. The situation of 2011 has Former governors and a complex situation in Former House members.

$g(x)={\frac {1}{\sigma {\sqrt {2\pi }}}}e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {x-\mu }{\sigma }}\right)^{2}}$ 19:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

GriefCrow, if you want to replace the information with a more up-to-date example, then go ahead. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I just finished the replacement. $g(x)={\frac {1}{\sigma {\sqrt {2\pi }}}}e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}\left({\frac {x-\mu }{\sigma }}\right)^{2}}$ 22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

GriefCrow, great! I have reworded it for greater clarity. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

David Perdue?

What happened to Perdue on the list? Why only 99 senators? Are we waiting for tomorrow's results? He is still a sitting senator. J2m5 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

J2m5, David Perdue left office on January 3. See this source, amongst others. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz Oh wow, had no idea. Thanks! Sorry to be a use of your time. J2m5 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, J2m5; happy to help! I believe this situation is unprecedented (or at least highly, highly unusual); the runoff date took me by surprise when I was first made aware of it. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting though. If he gets elected to his former seat, will the Senate let him retain his previous senior status? GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, that was discussed at #"Senior senator from Georgia". Having spoken to the Senate Historian's Office, they are of the opinion that it'll be up to the Republican Conference whether to let him to retain his seniority for committee assignments etc. On an official basis, I think Perdue will have lost his seniority but will de facto keep it, as the main advantage of it is up to Sen. McConnell. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz: "Having spoken to the Senate Historian's Office" → WP:OR. I'd rather let some reliable published source report on it. —GoldRingChip 14:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I know it is original research, GoldRingChip. We've discussed it before. I was just answering GoodDay's question. What the Republican Conference decides to do has no standing for this list anyways. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. OK. If the Republican Conference has no standing, who does? —GoldRingChip 15:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

GoldRingChip, the seniority lists we have here are based on the Senate's lists. They're the official ones, so to speak. However, committee assignments are up to senators' respective conferences/caucuses. So Sen. McConnell is free to ignore the official list if he so wishes (though possibly subject to a vote in his conference, but I don't see his decision being overturned). That's my understanding of the matter, anyways. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think his Senate seniority (as opposed to conference or committee seniority) can be retained (or not) by a Senate vote. But things will be clearer after the election is over, and it’ll undoubtedly be reported in the media. JTRH (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In a quorum call after all senators sworned in, Mr. Perdue wasn't on that list. https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3987 Noncommittalp (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The seat is vacant because his term expired on Jan. 3. It will remain vacant until the election results are certified. The issue is whether, if he wins again, being out of office for 12 days will wipe out the seniority he gained from his previous term. That's not yet clear. JTRH (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that this issue will soon become moot, as Sen. Perdue is projected to lose the election by most journalists (although the AP has not called the election yet). While the nerd in me is disappointed, the Wikipedian in me is very relieved. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ossoff and Warnock seniority by last name (if they both assume office on the same day)?

So, if I'm reading the seniority tiebreakers correctly, if Georgia certifies both elections on the same day (so Ossoff and Warnock assume office on the same day as each other), Ossoff will gain seniority over Warnock by virtue of his last name?

Neither has held any public office that is used for tiebreakers (Senate, VP, House, Cabinet, Governor), and they're both from the same state (for Census population purposes), so... Alphabetical order by last name? Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 05:00, January 7, 2021 (UTC)

Canuckian89, that's correct. Unfortunately for Warnock, his service as a pastor does not confer additional Senate seniority. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Padilla’s seniority

Assuming Padilla (Harris’ presumptive successor) is sworn in on the same day as Ossoff and Warnock, what is his seniority rank with respect to the other members given his previous history of government service? --50.216.78.121 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Padilla would rank above both Ossoff and Warnock if sworn in on the same day, but not because of his prior government service. Padilla's prior service is limited to state and local government (but not becoming governor). As a result, the criterion that would make Padilla rank above them is state population: California is more populated than Georgia. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)