Jump to content

Talk:117th United States Congress/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Who votes for Georgia's Enate seat if the likely Special Election Run-off is not yet determined? Could it change the majority until the Special Run=off result is certified?

I can't figure out who is the Senator for Georgia between Jan New Congress and certification of presumed Run-off Election after the 117th is convened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev Doug Edwards (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The one who's there now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Senate seat will be vacant from January 3 until the run-off election is held. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Kelly Loeffler is an appointed Senator and it's a mid-term special election. She stays in office until the runoff is over. The same thing happens with Martha McSally. House members' terms end on the last half-day of the old congress, but Senators, unless their regular terms do, do not. Chuck Schumer, for example, doesn't have to be sworn in, as he has a six-year term. So unless she resigns, Loeffler gets to stay in her job until the voting is certified, and thus she gets a week or so in the new Congress. I'm not sure if there's a runoff if Perdue doesn't get 50%+1. If there is one for that seat, the Governor will probably appoint him for the time in between in order that he doesn't lose seniority, but I really don't know.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Jan 3 or Jan 4 2021?

The article currently lists Jan 3 as when Congress meets but Jan 4 as when it convenes at noon. Is there a technical difference? I've only ever heard Jan 3 2021 mentioned, although it is a Sunday and previous Congresses have not convened at weekends. David Brooks (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@DavidBrooks: Under the 20th Amendment, the 117th Congress begins on the 3rd of January. That's the date that matters.
Sdrqaz (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: Unless the preceding Congress changes it by law - e.g. 114th started 6 Jan 2015 (Jan 3 was a Saturday) and the 112th on 5 Jan 2011. As next 3 Jan is a Sunday, I wondered if the 116th changed the date of the 117th, but it seems not. This article seems to have been fixed since 31 Oct. Thanks for responding though. David Brooks (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks: I'm now slightly confused as to what we're discussing. While it is the case under Section 2 that the assembly date can be delayed, the date the actual Congress begins cannot be changed unless by another constitutional amendment (Section 1). In the lead paragraph of the 114th Congress, it states that it "met in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 2015" and has the session date of January 6. Therefore, it follows for this page that the lead paragraph should remain January 3 unless a surprise constitutional amendment occurs (!) and the session date should be January 3 unless the 116th Congress determines otherwise.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: I'm sure I'm the confused one. The Senate informational page uses the term "convene...date" which is what you call assembly date. Thanks for explaining the subtle difference. David Brooks (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@DavidBrooks: It was a pleasure. Sections 1 and 2 of the Amendment are hardly the most exciting or analysed parts of the Constitution and I'm not sure I quite understand it as much as I would like. I would say that Section 1 is the one that matters for this discussion.
Sdrqaz (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Senate majority at the beginning.

Just a note. Senate could be split 49/49 at Noon EST on 3 January 2021, thus the Republicans would keep the majority & become 50/50 on the 5 January 2021, thus the Republicans keeping the majority until Noon Est on 20 January 2021. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm afraid I disagree. When the 117th Congress convenes, there will only be one seat that is vacant: David Perdue's seat. As Kelly Loeffler was appointed to her seat, she does not vacate it when the 116th Congress ends. Rather, she will vacate it following the runoff election (if she loses).
Sdrqaz (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Because the term she was appointed to, to serve out, doesn't expire until January 3, 2023. What's the Senate's status from January 3 to 5, 2021? GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Yes, exactly. Pending the results in North Carolina and Alaska (which are seen to be probably going to the GOP), the Senate will probably have a 51-48 split. I agree that the GOP can keep its majority following the Georgia runoffs, but it's highly unlikely that there will be an even split prior to them unless someone is appointed to Perdue's vacancy for those two days.
Sdrqaz (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Don't you mean 50-48 split? GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not. As I said above, Kelly Loeffler retains her seat after January 3 because she was appointed to her seat. Given that the elections for North Carolina and Alaska will be called before then, there will only be one vacancy: David Perdue's seat.
Sdrqaz (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Grassley as President Pro Tempore?

With the current election results in from the 2020 Senate elections, the results so far are 51-48 in favor of the Republicans (52-48 assuming Georgia Governor Brian Kemp appoints David Perdue when the new Senate starts), at least at the beginning pending the runoffs in Georgia. By what I can tell, this means that at the very least, at the beginning Chuck Grassley, as the most senior Republican senator, will still continue to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate until Georgia is certified at the very least. Should the President Pro Tempore spot be changed to mark his name then? JadeEditor (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@JadeEditor: There was a similar debate in the talk page of the 115th Congress, when Sen. Orrin Hatch was to remain President pro tempore after first assuming the office in the 114th Congress. As the Congressional Research Service has held that [t]he President pro tempore holds his office during his Senate term and is not reelected at the beginning of a new Congress,[1] I am inclined to follow its advice and agree with you.
Sdrqaz (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and he has been put now. --Foghe (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: After reading through the US Senate website, the procedure is that the President pro tempore holds office until a successor is elected. So I will proceed to change the President pro tempore from "TBD" to "Chuck Grassley until at least January 22, 2021" as Georgia elections certify in 17 days from the 5th, which is the 22nd. JadeEditor (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
No need for "until at least…." If there's a change, you update it then. —GoldRingChip 19:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Without it, would give the impression that Grassley is prez pro-temp for the entire 117th congress. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
He is, unless there's a change and that's always the case. To compare, for example: Elizabeth Warren will be the class 1 senator from Massachusetts, but we don't need to say "until at least she resigns if appointed to… blah blah." MAYBE if there was a finite term ending (which, discussed above, there isn't) it might be different. —GoldRingChip 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Schneider, Judy (December 19, 2018). The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the Senate Floor (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Retrieved November 12, 2020. The President pro tempore holds his office during his Senate term and is not reelected at the beginning of a new Congress.

Font

@Foghe: After all the trouble I went through to put in larger fonts & spacing, to compromise with another editor. Does this mean I gotta undo all the change I did on the other # US Congress articles? GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: If you are okay with that, I can do that! --Foghe (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Better check with @Muboshgu:, who's against small fonts. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok! --Foghe (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW - I prefer the small font, which you've restored :) GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Foghe, I'm not "against" small font as much as it's against policy to use small font in the infobox because the infobox font is already less than 100% by default. MOS:SMALLFONT explains this better than I could. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Foghe: If you want to implement the changes across the other # US Congress articles? By all means go for it. Muboshgu's silence speaks of consensus for your. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Ok good, agreed. Bye! --Foghe (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip:, please read this discussion, before going around the font, again. @Foghe:, need your observation here, as well. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(Thanks for pinging me on this. I have no opinion on this, but I will read on and obey. —GoldRingChip 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC))
GoodDay, MOS:SMALLFONT is not negotiable. Font sizes in the infobox are already by default below 100% of the normal font size. Going below 85% of the normal font size makes pages inaccessible to some of our readers. We do not use small font templates or html markup in infoboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Time for an RFC, it appears. Why? Because this is getting bleeping frustration. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, no, it's time for you to read the Manual of Style, which was developed through RfCs. You are making an aesthetic choice that makes Wikipedia less readable to some. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to open up an RFC on the matter. These articles were using small font for years. You didn't complain much then. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

request edit 117th United States Congress

In the Article titled “117th United States Congress” Wikipedia claims that “It is scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C. … during the final weeks of Donald Trump's term as President of the United States and through the first two years of Joseph Biden's.” This claim is wrong, biased, and premature, because Joseph Biden would not be elected president by the Electoral College until mid-December, and as of this date, November 17, no Electors have been certified by any state for Biden. [1]

Unfortunately, I cannot access the CRS report that you have cited. However, the statement that the 117th Congress will meet during the first two years of the Biden administration is not "wrong, biased, and premature". Wikipedians carry out their duties to the best of their ability, putting aside any personal views on the subject. Although the Electoral College has not met in their respective states (December 14 this year), it has been well-accepted by all reputable news organisations that Joe Biden is the president-elect. As of November 17, the states of Delaware, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and North Dakota have certified their 2020 elections results.
Sdrqaz (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF1164

Sean Patrick Maloney

Sgarvey, I don't think Maloney's NY-18 election has been called yet. Can you provide some evidence that it has been called?

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sgarvey, the AP has just called Maloney's election (11:07am EST). Please do not add representatives until elections have been called.
Sdrqaz (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Fontsize in the infobox

Concerning the serving dates of the Congressional officers (VP, PPT, Speaker) & dates for parties (if required). What font size should be used? Seems a disagreement on this matter pops up, almost after every congressional election. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Shall we use in the infobox:

  • Mike Pence
    (until January 20, 2021)
  • Kamala Harris
    (since January 20, 2021)
    or
  • Mike Pence
    (until January 20, 2021)
  • Kamala Harris
    (since January 20, 2021)

Survey

Discussion

It's unreadable not having them small. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, no it's not! In fact, for people with disabilities, it is literally unreadable if it's small! And I don't appreciate finding that you complained to me about me removing the small from this article making them all "consistent", when what you did was undo me making it uniformly correct back on November 10! You're making a mess out of all of this out of what "you", a person without disabilities (I assume), thinks of MOS:ACCESS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess you apparently know everything. You're even making changes to multiple articles related to this RFC, while it's in progress. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I know this issue, and you clearly don't. I've asked you to read up on it and you appear to have not done so. I'm citing Wikipedia guidelines, and your opposition to them boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • MOS:SMALLFONT seems unequivocal on this matter. While I understand that having it as a small font seems more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing (and I would have that if it were not against the Manual of Style), WP:IAR should only be used in extreme circumstances and I am not convinced that this is one of them. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • MOS:SMALLFONT says Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. This means that <small>...</small> tags, and templates such as {{small}} and {{smaller}}, should not be applied to already-reduced text within those elements. Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook). Sdrqaz is right that this is unequivocal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
So in the middle of this RFC, you go ahead & change all the other # US Congress, before a result is reached here. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, this RfC is not valid. MOS:SMALLFONT applies everywhere, based on existing consensus. To change it, you would have to raise the issue on Wikipedia:Manual of Style, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Note - An editor has proceeded to change all related articles to this RFC, concerning fontsize, while RFC was in progress. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Recommendation: This RfC does not seem to be going anywhere productive. It would be advisable to perhaps engage in WP:MEDIATE instead of continuing this RfC. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Give it a month. I'll abide by its result, whatever that is, in mid-December. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also: Regardless of font size, shouldn't we use "from" instead of "since"? As in, "Kamala Harris, from January 20, 2021"? —GoldRingChip 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. However, that's for GoodDay to alter in their RfC if they wish. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
"from" or "since" is irrelevant to me. I'm only concerned about the fontsize. You can change the wording if ya want, within the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Closure

Obviously, consensus is for regular fontsize. So a formal closure isn't required. Result has been implemented. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

On House Democratic Leadership:

Freshman Class Rep: Mondaire Jones

Steering and Policy Committee: Barbara Lee, Eric Swalwell, Cheri Bustos SavePercentage (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@SavePercentage: Thank you for bringing this to our attention; the edit has been made. However, in the future please provide a source along with your edit request.
Sdrqaz (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

IA-02 and NY-22

Hello everyone this is just a PSA that we may not have a clear winner in both IA-02 and NY-22. Both of these seats may end up being vacant by the time Congress begins due to how close the races will be. We might end up with 2 vacant seats in congress but we shall see what happens. Wollers14 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Independents in the House

Out of curiosity, what is the source for the 4 House members listed as Independents in the party summary section? I have not seen any where that anyone is registered Independent? And if there is a source, is there any indication who they will caucus with? Thanks. Jdavi333 (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jdavi333: There doesn't seem to be a source for it because as far as I know, there aren't any members of the House taking office as independents. Burloak seemed to have subtracted four members from the Democrats and stuck them in the 'Independent' column in this edit. I've changed it to zero independents for now.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
So far there's 3 seats yet to be decided, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Committee chairs and ranking members

I was quite intrigued by this idea by KingOpti1012 to have the chairs and ranking members of congressional committees in the article. Although it was quickly reverted for lack of consensus, I think that having the section would be quite useful. As for the argument that such a section may be a little premature (given that the 117th Congress has not assembled yet), the list of congressional leadership positions had been in place over a year before the 2020 elections had occurred. I think the essay WP:DRNC (yes, I know, not binding policy) applies here: the section would be an improvement on the existing page and should be retained.

I would be happy to hear any of your opinions!

Sdrqaz (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't understand why this can't be included, as it's there for previous Congresses. Was there some dispute about consensus? Is the problem that these committee have yet to be chaired? If so, there are already party caucuses that are electing chairs. Furthermore, we can assume that the Senate will start with a Republican majority, even though the Georgia races have a chance of changing that. —GoldRingChip 12:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it's a simple issue of committee membership not being known yet, besides for the issue of the Senate majority. Better to wait until committee assignments are given by the party leaders and chairpersons are elected. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jdavi333: As I pointed out, in the earliest non-redirect version of the page in March 2019 here there was already lists of congressional leadership and U.S. representatives elected in the 2020 elections with "TBD" after every single entry. I don't think that it is a good enough reason to preclude a list of committee chairs and ranking members, even if the majority of posts are to be left with "TBD" in them. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @GoldRingChip: The reason given at the time was a lack of consensus, but I think WP:DRNC should apply here. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, I don't see a reason to revert just due to "lack of consensus." Furthermore, the committee chairs are already being named, so it's no longer speculative. —GoldRingChip 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
        • There wasn't a reason for it to be reverted, it should be put back. Noting that none of the new committee chairs have been named, only been each party's House steering committee recommendations, subject to approval by each full caucus/conference. There is a history of the Democratic caucus rejecting the steering committee name, but even though the Republican side does not have this history, we should preclude them. While most (on the Democratic side at least) will move as committee leads (chair or ranking member) from the 116th to 117th, we should probably leave all as TBD until full confirmation given the uncertainty of how the Republicans will apply their three-term limit rules on each committee (we have a good idea, but no definitive statement by the party or sources beyond the latter's speculation. Noting that the congressional parties vote for most committee leads, but the party leaders (Speaker/Minority Leader) appoint for the Administration, Ethics, Intel and Rules committees (Intel also has internal term limits that affect membership). Of the special committees from the 116th, we know the Modernization of Congress Committee isn't continuing but I've not seen any word on the Climate Crisis Committee. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I reverted it per lack of consensus. Seeing as that has changed since? by all means keep'em & fill'em in. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Consistency in House races

I'm doing the best I can, to keep things consistent between this article & 2020 United States House of Representatives elections. For the moment, it's being difficult, concerning the 3 congressional districts: California-25, Iowa-2 & New York-22. To date, editors at both articles are in agreement about New York-22 not being called. But there's disagreement over the status of California-25 & Iowa-2. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Although neither California's 25th nor Iowa's 2nd has been called by the AP, the Democratic candidate in California's 25th (Christy Smith) has conceded the election.[1][2] With that concession, the election should be viewed as over and Rep. Mike Garcia as being re-elected to his seat. As for Iowa's 2nd, the AP has not called that election. It has reported that the Iowa Board of Canvass has certified the results,[3] but it has not called it. Given that her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, has not conceded and the AP has yet to call that election, I am of the opinion that we should leave that seat for now as unresolved.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As I stated on the Elections article talk page, when state officials certify the results the election is over. AP calling a race or a loser conceding comes before certification. Obviously the loser is free to challenge the results (as the president is doing). But the election is official, even if only won by 1 vote. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm giving it a try, but in case I don't succeed. Would someone explain to @Wollers14: why it's important to complete his edits to this article & 2020 US House elections article? GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I have attempted to complete my edits to the best of my ability. I attempted to change some things in regards to it but sometimes I cannot access the reflist and make the changes required. If someone would like to explain that to me I would do that. There is also sometimes I do not notice the other changes made so that is my bad. However when it comes to IA-02 as @Jdavi333: is mentioning me. IA-02 is so close and the House which Democrats control may look at this and decide who wins the election. I don't know whether they will get involved or not but until we know we should keep IA-02 as undecided. We have to be absolutely certain about results like these before listing them especially a race this close because it is separated by 6 votes. I understand that the result has been certified but with a legal process that could change the result the race should remain undetermined. Wollers14 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned at your talkpage. I don't mean to be cranky, but... GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I disagree on IA-2 due to the extraordinarily narrow margin and that seating is ultimately in the power of the House and not contingent on state certification. It's fine to drag out until we have a final conclusion, but not totally correct to state Miller-Meeks is the winner. This could be the next Coleman-Franken drag out until next July. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That's fine and dandy, but does not change the facts. If the house or a court overturns the results, then fine we'll change it. There is also a "chance" that state legislatures in PA, MI, and GA will not give Biden the electoral votes, yet Biden still won, at least for now. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, equating a six vote margin with a high probability of challenge to Trump's specious accusations of voter fraud is a bad faith argument to me. There are bullshit disputes (Trump's) and those with a legitimate chance (IA-2). There is no harm in leaving it blank given the high volatility in this exceedingly rare case (same thing for NY-22). Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
My point is not to equate the validity of the election litigation. The point is, the election was certified. Yes it's close. Yes there will be court challenges. Yes Miller-Meeks might win by 1 vote and Nancy Pelosi might decide to subvert the will of the people and not seat her. The point is, right now we have the best indicator of who won: the state officials have certified the election. This is not like Minnesota (Franken) and Florida 2000 (Bush) where there was truly no winner for a long time. Jdavi333 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Minnesota certified on November 18, 2008 with a different result. To be honest, it's not really our job as editors to make the determination through WP:SYNTH. What are reliable sources saying? If they have a consensus on declaring Miller-Meeks the winner (I think of the state certification as a primary source, not dunno if that's a universal standard), then we ca say so. If they don't, then we can leave it as TBD and be fine until it's resolved. I am fully the type of editor to reflect information once it's known. I am cautious in this particular case because I don't think it's certain. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I see the point about Franken's "loss" being certified before the recount. However, that might be a detail in Minnesota state law which allows certification before a mandatory recount. Here, the Iowa recount has already occurred, with Miller-Meeks winning, and only then were the results certified. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to let this go, but Therequiembellishere has made an excellent point regarding WP:SYNTH. The majority of sources I see have not unequivocally said that Miller-Meeks won Iowa's 2nd, but have just reported that the state Board of Canvass has certified the results. It would be a false equivalence to compare the President's legal challenges and Rita Hart's challenge in the House Administration Committee. While I believe both are unlikely to succeed, one is far more unlikely than the other. Wikipedia should follow WP:RS. Where the reliable sources go, we go. It would not do harm to have the election in Iowa's 2nd be listed as unresolved for a few more days. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You're litigating a result and parsing the possible differences between MN and IA election law. It's not our role. If you can show a good showing of reliable sources calling Miller-Meeks "Rep-elect" then we can say so. If most are holding back, then we have no business getting ahead of them. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The Des Moines Register has called her "Representative-elect" here ("A state board certified Iowa Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks as the representative-elect for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District Monday in a race that came down to just six votes — the closest federal election in the country this year.") Also here, and here. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Jdavi333, as much as I love the Register, it and the other sources that you have listed are local Iowa sources and, more importantly, are articles before Hart decided to challenge the election under the Federal Contested Elections Act. That is a crucial development that cannot be ignored. According to reputable national sources, It wasn’t clear whether the process would prevent Miller-Meeks from taking office on Jan. 3 to represent the district.[4] The New York Times has said The other unresolved race is an open seat in Iowa’s Second District.[5] Where there is such a dispute, it would be better to err on the side of caution, especially where reliable sources are in conflict with each other. There is no deadline. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This AP article clearly refers to M-M as the winner. It also says that the most likely scenario (even assuming the House steps in) is to let her be sworn in separately (whatever that means) pending the appeal.
P.S. Thanks for that outdent. I didn't know to do that and the amount of colons being used was getting out of hand. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Jdavi333, no problem at all. But as I've said before, there is a distinction between reporting that the state Board of Canvass has certified the results and actually calling the election. A more careful reading of that article would reveal that the AP has done the first; it has not done the second. We cannot treat likely scenarios as certainties. In the same paragraph, the AP said that the House could refuse to allow her to be seated. We should only say that Miller-Meeks has won Iowa's 2nd after it is certain that she has won, not when it is the most likely scenario. It is not Wikipedia's role to treat likely outcomes as certain. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, but I really see it as the opposite. This race is more over than a state that has not yet certified its results, no matter how many media outlets have "called" it. Yes they might not seat her. And if they decide not to, we can change the article. But for now, the people who count and certify the ballots have done so. The fact that she won by 6 votes, or 1 vote, or 6 thousand votes, is irrelevant. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Jdavi333, I think we're at an impasse. An RfC would probably be a lot more useful that continuing this debate here. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Such an RFC should cover both this article & the 2020 US House elections article. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I will post a notice there notifying users of the RfC here. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Same thing I said on the house races article: Wikipedia does not call races. It is NOT our decision when a race is to be called. It is the AP's decision and Iowa 2 is uncalled. If they felt that certification wasn't enough then we must follow. We need to put it back to uncalled, and we can put a note saying the results were certified but the race is uncalled because of legal challenges. 108.14.43.250 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I replied to you there. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Picket, Kerry (November 30, 2020). "Rep. Mike Garcia wins California's 25th Congressional District". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  2. ^ "Christy Smith Concedes To Mike Garcia In LA County Congressional Race". CBS Los Angeles. November 30, 2020. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  3. ^ Foley, Ryan J. (November 30, 2020). "Iowa board certifies 6-vote Republican win in US House race". Iowa City. The AP. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  4. ^ Foley, Ryan J. (December 2, 2020). "Iowa Democrat to challenge 6-vote loss in appeal to US House". The Washington Post. The Associated Press. Retrieved 3 December 2020.
  5. ^ Ferré-Sadurní, Luis; McKinley, Jesse (December 2, 2020). "12 Votes Separated These House Candidates. Then 55 Ballots Were Found". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 December 2020.

RfC: should Mariannette Miller-Meeks be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd?

Should Mariannette Miller-Meeks be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • No. Although MMM has been certified by the state Board of Canvass, Iowa's 2nd has been described by the New York Times as unresolved; there is no consensus among other news outlets following Hart's decision to challenge the results. Where the reliable sources go, we go. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. When media outlets "call" an election for a candidate, or when a candidate concedes, that is before the official results. Elections are counted and decided by state officials, when they count all the votes and certify the results. MMM won the election. She has more votes. What is immaterial is of she had 6 more votes, 1 more vote, or 6,000 more votes. The fact that it is so close and the losing candidate is filing litigation and appeals with a House Committee is irrelevant. If somehow the results are changed or the House decides to override the will of the voters and not swear her in, then we can react accordingly. Until then, she is the winner. She got more votes.
    As an aside, NY Times is very behind in a bunch of their elections, and they have not yet "called" NY-1 or NY-2, which these articles have as decided. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: pending, of course, resolution by the House itself. Certified results do indeed show that Dr. Miller-Meeks won, but Rita Hart has appealed to the House of Representatives, as is her right. The Associated Press notes that "Miller-Meeks would likely be sworn in separately and allowed to serve pending the outcome of the contest, given that her victory has been certified by the state." Until and unless such sources state or claim otherwise, she is the Member-elect, pending the resolution of the issue by the House. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: Iowa has certified the result. Hart, the Democrat is not contesting the recount or certification in the courts, simply refusing to concede and requesting the Democrat majority House override Iowa law - something which does have precedent. The fact Biden is referred to as president-elect despite not having been elected by the Electoral College, and Trump lawsuits ongoing (not that these will likely change anything), suggests there is a double standard in play which is skewing how things are treated. Either the winner of the votes is the Whatever-Elect, or they are not. This disparate treatment is a problem. If court or House action changes the outcomes then that can be reflected in corrections. 人族 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No: Hart isn't "simply refusing to concede". She has the right to contest the results in court, and the only reason she isn't doing so is that the deadline would be too short and she would invariably have to then take it to the House anyways. This is not unprecedented--this procedure has, in general form, been in the constitution since the founding of this country, and no Iowa law is being overruled. It has multiple specific precedents in Iowa for both the federal and state Congresses (mostly by and in favor of Republican candidates).

There is a significantly high likelihood that she will be certified the winner of the Iowa election, under the normal procedures enshrined by law, and then Wikipedia's statement that Miller-Meeks won the race would eminently and overtly have been inaccurate. Calling Miller-Meeks the certified winner of the election is a misleading and partisan move that reduces the trustability of Wikipedia as a source on these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes: Iowa has certified the result. Hart, the Democratic candidate, is not pursuing judicial avenues. The Democratic candidate is hoping to overturn the result in a political manner. Hart did not choose to challenge the results. Taking the certified result to the U.S. House is not a judicial remedy. The Democratic candidate specifically choose not to pursue judicial avenues. The Democratic candidate is pursuing a political remedy, attempting to get a legislature to vote to overturn the certified results. This is not a judicial solution, but a political solution. Essentially, the Democratic candidate is pursuing an another election, gathering enough votes in the U.S. House, to overturn certified results. The odds of winning an election like that are very low. There has been over 100 attempted House elections and only 1 certified result has been overturned in decades, in 1984. When the Democratic candidate choose not to pursue judicial remedies then the Iowa #2 race was over. Hart also closed her fate on Wikipedia by choosing not to pursue judicial remedies. She closed the door. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No. In order to state someone as having won in IA-02 there must be no contention to the results of the election. While certification has given Miller-Meeks the victory in the eyes of the State of Iowa they have no say in a potential process in the House of Representatives that could end up with Hart being seated at the beginning of the 117th Congress. It is also unknown if an investigation is opened by the House if Miller-Meeks will take the Oath of Office when the Congress opens on January 3rd. In order for us to list this we must be absolutely sure beyond any reasonable doubt that she will be in the House chamber taking the oath beforehand. For that reason the race in general should remain uncalled as anything at this point can happen. Wollers14 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Without a doubt she is the winner the state of Iowa has certified it and that's all that should be needed. The news networks have not shown consistency in calling these races and at the end of the day the only thing that makes an election final is the certification of the result. What CNN or NYT shouldn't matter and they've been behind in calling races since election night.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • My only concern is that we're consistent between here, the 2020 US House elections & any other related articles :) GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 人族, it would be a false equivalence (comparing apples and oranges) to compare this dispute with the President's challenges to Biden's victory. Biden has been referred to as "president-elect" in virtually every reliable source. Miller-Meeks has not. The Washington Post and New York Times have not referred to her as "representative-elect", instead reporting on the certification and challenge in relatively neutral terms. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 人族, I don't really want to get into a debate about perceived media bias in the United States and whether Wikipedia editors have a liberal bias. With all due respect to Legal Insurrection, it is a blog. It is not a newspaper, nor a reputable news source. To make a comparison between Legal Insurrection and the likes of the Washington Post and New York Times would be unfair and another example of false equivalence. If you're looking for conservative news sources that have called Biden "president-elect": Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Examiner, the Washington Times (adding the qualifier of "presumptive"), the New York Post, the Chicago Tribune. I could continue finding links, but I think I've made my point. The issue of who won the presidential election is one that transcends the liberal/conservative divide in the media. Wikipedia is above those lines. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sdrqaz, fair enough you want to avoid the issue, but is it possible without compromising Wikipedia's standard of neutrality? There is the old example of Wikipedia quoting Nazi propaganda as reliable fact in an alternative universe where the Third Reich defines reliability. LI may indeed be a blog not a multi-million dollar media empire, but WaPo and NYT are bywords for unreliability in conservative circles. While I don't follow Fox myself what I've heard is that viewer numbers have plummeted as conservative viewers switch to OAN, NewsMax etc. True, false, or misleading I can't say. That Fox News was strongly pro-Biden has however been commented on. I agree who is sworn in transcends the liberal:conservative divide - facts should be facts, but technically the presidency hasn't been won since the electoral college hasn't yet sat. This is something of a tangent to the focus of this thread though so ... 人族 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 人族, we're drifting further and further away from the point. Fortunately, we don't live in that dystopia, so it's rather irrelevant. The pertinent difference between Legal Insurrection and the Post and Times is not that they're multi-million dollar media empire[s], but that they're subject to far more rigorous editorial oversight. The notion of Fox News being pro-Biden is ... certainly novel. Yes, the Electoral College has not yet met. Yes, the votes have not been counted yet in a joint session of Congress. But the outcome of the presidential election is beyond certain: Biden has been ascertained as president-elect by GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy under the 1963 Presidential Transition Act and as of Friday he has had 279 Electoral College votes certified for him. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Jdavi333, regarding how the New York Times is "slow", that is because its map is dependent on the AP's calls. The AP has not called the elections, so the Times' map does not show those elections as resolved. In the interests of consistency, New York's 1st has not been called by the AP, nor has there been a concession. Zeldin should not have been listed as the winner, and I will probably make edits to rectify that. New York's 2nd has not been called by the AP, but Jackie Gordon has conceded there and the Times has reported on that here, making it clear that Garbarino won. The Times' map seems to work independently from the news stories it writes. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not list anyone as the winner until the House of Representatives has decided a winner. The margin is just too close (6 votes) for a winner to be clear. That is why Rita Hart asked the House to decide the election. The House maintains the plenary power to decide elections, not state officials. If they wanted to, they could overturn an election where a winner is clear, so long as it reaches the House. It is not clear who the House will pick. Certified results do not matter for any House election, but the judgement of the House. Even though Iowa has certified the results in favor of Marianette Meeks, until the House decides a winner, she will not take office, unless they say she won. If they don’t resolve it by January 3, no one takes office and a special election will be held, similar to the 2018 North Carolina 9 race. Therefore, Wikipedia should wait to declare a winner of the Iowa 2 House race until the judgment of the House. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Muhibm0307 I think it just as likely (i.e. 1,000,000:1 chance) that the house decides to refuse so seat M-M as it is that Republican legislatures in PA, MI, WI, and GA will refuse to give Biden the state's electoral votes. Although I would not put such a power grab beyond Nancy Pelosi, I think she would not be able to get the rest of her party on board with it. Even if M-M wins by 1 vote, that's still a win. Jdavi333 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who is saying NY-1 is not decided. NY certified their results here, and the spreadsheets clearly show results for NY-1, and on the NY-22 tab is says "Litigation pending", so obviously the NY state officials see NY-1 as decided but NY-11 as undecided. If no one has an answer that is different from Iowa-2 I will revert NY-1 back to decided for Zeldin. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jdavi333: NY-11? I don't think there are any disputes about the 11th district. With New York's 1st, the AP had not called it, nor had the Democratic candidate conceded. But in light of the certification, I'm happy to leave it as resolved. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: Sorry NY-22. Jdavi333 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note - I've made a semi-protection request for 2020 United States House of Representatives elections article. To try to keep consistency. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note - The NY-22 seat will be vacant, on January 3, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Note - I believe that Iowa 2 should be colored in as a Republican gain on the map, because in the article there is a check Mark next to Miller-Meeks’ name. Be consistent please! Additionally, we will get conservatives and Republicans complaining because we called Biden the winner in the states Trump is contesting not only after certification, but BEFORE. 69.121.243.76 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Special elections in the Senate

May I point out, that the runoff election for the seat currently held by David Perdue, is not a special election. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A 2 or 3 day vacancy is irrelevant, as it's still not a special election. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Correct: it's not a special election. —GoldRingChip 14:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

House NY-1

What's the situation with House NY-1 seat? A growing dispute is occurring at the 2020 US House elections race. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, the AP has not called it, nor has Nancy Goroff (the Democratic candidate) conceded. However, I think the Board of Elections has certified the result. I'm happy to leave it as resolved. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind going over to the 2020 US House election article, as some mobile editor is making a mess of it. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Major Events section

Can we come to an agreement on how to show a president's assumption of office, in the Major events section? For this & all preceding articles? It's not a crime to have consistency on this. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Sure, and it's good idea to aim for (but not be beholden to) consistency. I suggest the simplest possible mention of an event, especially if it's not an event directly involving Congress. If there is an article on that event, then that linked-article should suffice unless it perhaps needs a pipe or a few words to explain. This is just a summary list and if readers want to know more they can click the link. For example: "Gulf of Tonkin incident" would be better than: "A disputed international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War". —GoldRingChip 14:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not concern how we show. Just want to adopt what we agree on, to the others where a change of presidential term occurs. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm in favour of keeping it consistent with the other Congress pages. It's not an issue worth warring over (no issue is, of course) or going back to all the previous pages to implement mostly cosmetic changes. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Section: Congressional Staff

The Section Congressional Staff should be changed to Administrative Officers. Congressional Staff are employees, employed by individual member offices or committees to assist members. The individuals listed are classified as Administrative Officers who are elected by the whole House. Terri McCullough also should not be included in the list as she is a congressional staffer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonshatek (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Georgia Runoff Results

Can we agree not to make any changes until the votes are certified? Both elections are likely to be razor thin, and the media "calls," while valuable, may be too early to be accurate. I think it prudent to wait for the certifications by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Jdavi333 (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That will take some time. I'm in favour of changing when the AP calls it. For the 2020 elections, I think we had agreed to wait for universal media calls before changing the results; we didn't wait for results to be certified. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
We should go with AP's call. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the above two editors. The precedent on previous articles has been to use the election call, not certification. As compromise, however, I think we should clearly note that the results are unofficial until certified and explain how elections are called, once AP makes a projection. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


In accordance with the above consensus, I have updated the Senate list to reflect the AP call in the special (Class 3) race. ScorpiumX (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

January 23, 2021

@ScorpiumX and Saxones288: Where has this date of January 23 come from? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Better yet. Do we know when the two Democrats will be sworn in (assuming they've won 'both' seats)? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It's up to the Senate, but they'll be sworn in as soon as the results are certified, I think. Georgia law states that the deadline is the second Friday after the election (January 15 in this case), but Sec. Raffensperger can extend it. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we need to make it TBA, because media calls do not dictate when a candidate/winner is sworn in at all. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Jdavi333, with respect the consensus above seems pretty clearly against that idea. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I meant in terms of the date the senator should be seated, not whether the winner is declared. Warnock (and almost certainly Ossoff) are the winners, but the date they will be seated cannot be determined at all, probably for a week or more if there are recounts and/or challenges that cause Raffensperger to delay certification. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. We do not yet know when the victors of the Senate races will be sworn in. We should leave it as TBA for now. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It is TBD in everything except for the explanatory note stating that it could extend to January 15. That date is based on Georgia law. If Raffensperger decides to extend the deadline, he can do so and we will change the date in the note accordingly. But as it stands, that date should be January 15. It's unlikely that these two elections will be as protracted as the presidential election in Georgia, given that Warnock is above the 0.5% recount margin and Ossoff is considered by most journalists to be on track to go above it. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree on that as well, the certification actually has a fixed date so we should use that date for now, even if that date can be changed. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, we should use the date for when they actually take their seat. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The Senate keeps a handy list of dates for when each Senator takes office. As soon as Georgia certifies the results and Warnock and Ossoff are officially Senators, they will update the list with the relevant date(s). https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf Canuck89 (What's up?) 03:19, January 7, 2021 (UTC)

Re-arrangement in the infobox of US Congress articles?

Who changed the content arrangement of the infoboxes of these US Congress articles? This should be discussed first. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would you change? Now, it's confusing looking. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Senate Leadership Change

When Ossoff, Warnock, and Harris are sworn in, the position of majority leader is expected to transfer to Sen. Schumer. Should we make a note of this the same way there are notes under the Georgia Senate seats? Jppickar (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that there are notes in 'party summary' and in the infobox, I don't think it's very necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex Padilla to be sworn in on the 20th?

"In a press call, he told reporters he would likely be sworn in himself on Wednesday."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/17/politics/kamala-harris-resigns-senate/index.html

101090ABC (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

The Senate chart under "Party Summary" section has the wrong numbers as of 3:44 PM Eastern. The total should be 97, with 3 vacant. The latest voting share should also be 47% instead of 48% for the Democrats. Context: Kamala Harris has resigned effective 12 pm today, and Alex Padilla hasn't been sworn in yet. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock haven't been sworn in yet too.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/when-exactly-do-democrats-take-control-in-washington/2021/01/17/b97eb158-590e-11eb-a849-6f9423a75ffd_story.html Urbandweller6 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Loeffler is still a member of the US Senate, so two vacancies is correct. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Got it, I just read that myself. Thank you. Urbandweller6 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding President pro-tempore of Senate

Under the Leadership section of the article, it mentions that Patrick Leahy is going to serve as the President pro tempore from 20th January 2020. But the President pro tempore is elected by the Senators.

The Democrats are not going to flip the Senate unless Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock & Alex Padilla are certified by Governors thereof and are sworned in, which may happen after January 20.

Moreover, there are no laws that bind the Senate to elect the senior most Senator of Majority party. Leahy may actually be elected as President pro tempore whenever Democratic party picks up the Senate, but there are no reliable references added to the following statement, which ensures us that he will surely be serving in that capacity.

Someone please verify the authenticity of the fact that Leahy may serve as President pro tempore starting January 20, otherwise please edit the Article, unless he is actually sworned in that capacity.

CX Zoom (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @CX Zoom and GoldRingChip: Given that the President pro tempore has been invariably the majority's most senior senator for over half a century, there is a near-zero chance that the Senate will forgo the senior senator from Vermont and install Sens. Feinstein, Murray or Wyden instead. The chances of that occurring are exceedingly small, bar Sen. Leahy's untimely passing. Moreover, The Hill, POLITICO, and The Independent have all reported that there would be no change. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't know who removed the Republican Party & Mike Pence from the infobox, but I wish they'd not do that again. The 117th US Congress began on January 3, not January 20. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't me as I have not edited this article, just observing it as the Congress shifts power. However, since it's past Jan. 20 and the Dems have officially taken over the Senate, perhaps that should be shown more prominently(ie have Dems on top instead of bottom). Right now, it looks like the Republicans are still the majority(if you don't look very hard of course). If this is the normal way of doing things that's fine as I don't want to muck up any previous consensus on the matter, just putting in my 2 cents. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Someone in SoCal Area: My understanding of these articles are that they act as historical pages meant to stand the test of time, with all the members who served in the Congress listed. It's a feature (or a bug, depending on your interpretation) of these articles that the officeholders are listed chronologically. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Major events

Myself & @GoldRingChip: have been a logger-heads over how to write up Biden's becoming US president, in the major events section. At the moment there's very little consistency with how this is done, across the US congress articles. I would ask that GRC work with mere 'here' on coming up with a suitable write up, which I'll then add to all the US Congress articles. I'd rather that them he & I low-edit warring over this, every several days. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Link to Inauguration Page

Am I the only one who thinks it is incredible that there is no link to Inauguration of Joe Biden anywhere on this page, seeing as this is probably the single most important event of the 117th Congress? Jdavi333 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't link to it in the other US Congress articles, where a presidential inauguration occurred. As mentioned above, I will reform all those articles, if that linkage is wanted by editors. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a situation where change from precedent is warranted. Inauguration of Joe Biden as 46th President of the United States seems like a perfectly reasonable format to me, and will not clutter the page(s) at all. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If GoldRingChip has no objections. I'll apply the change to all the US Congress articles, where required. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have no objections. (Not GoldRingChip) Sdrqaz (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, you're not @GoldRingChip:. Anyways you guys can write up the entry anyway yas wish & I'll implement it across the board. Just tired of the back-and-forth editing. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm GoldRingChip, and I have no objections. —GoldRingChip 01:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jdavi333:, @GoldRingChip:, @Sdrqaz:, I was planning on going through with what yas agreed to. But, may as well forget trying, @Therequiembellishere: has apparently decided to do it their way, which of course looks crowded & cumbersome. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It is so, so tiresome that your fealty to "consistently" results in this agonizing process where in the name of "consensus" you force everyone else into tedious discussions to find what is best on your terms on every single minor thing. (Also not my pronouns, thanks.) No, I hadn't seen this discussion prior, what I had seen is you getting reverted by a series of other people. You routinely hijack the spirit of WP:BRD to be "change anything from the ossified norm" and it is just frustrating. If we want to tinker with the best language, fine. If you want to just lock out of any changes because of a compulsive devotion to "consistency" (aka, you don't like it), then I oppose that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Requiem, I don't find these discussions tedious. And I also disagree with your characterisation of GoodDay's work. What is the harm in discussing a proposed change? As shown by the above discussion, GoodDay has been willing to implement consensus on other pages with which they may not necessarily agree, and has not routinely hijack[ed] anything. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who seeks to change an article from its status quo ante. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Myself & Therequiembellishere have rarely (if ever) agreed on anything, over the years :( GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Mention the storming in the opening paragraphs

I think that the opening paragraph should state that this Congress started on 3 Jan. 2021 and that, three days later, the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol occurred, leading to the Second impeachment of Donald Trump one week later. Those are extremely important events which frame the beginning of this Congress. I know that they are mentioned in the Major Events section, and they should remain there too, but these two events are of vast historical significance and are as important to the beginning of the Congress as the securing of the Democratic majority in each chamber and the Presidential transition from Trump to Biden are. IbexNu (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the major events section, which is all that's required. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Wording on the main page. I would change "In the Senate, the Republican Party briefly held the majority at the beginning of the term, but on January 20, 2021, three new Democratic senators were sworn in, resulting in the Republicans holding 50 seats, the Democrats with 48, and two held by independents who caucus with the Democrats, effectively making it a 50–50 split, which hasn't occurred since the beginning of the 107th Congress in 2001" to "In the Senate, the Republican Party briefly held the majority at the beginning of the term. On January 20th, 2021, three new Democratic senators (Jon Ossoff, D-GA, Raphael Warnock, D-GA, and Alex Padilla, D-CA) were sworn in, resulting in 50 seats held by Republicans, 48 seats held by Democrats, and two held by independents who caucus with the Democrats. Effectively, this created a 50-50 split, which had not occurred since the 107th United States Congress in 2001."

The rationale is that the sentence as it currently stands is a run-on sentence. It also mixes tense – I believe the last part can be in past tense because it "had not" occurred with respect to the event (the swearing in) that happened in the past, vs. "has not" is in respect to the present.

I would also change "With Vice President Kamala Harris serving as the tie breaker in her constitutional role as Senate President, this gave the Democrats control of the Senate, and thereby giving them full control of Congress for the first time since 111th Congress ended in 2011" to "With Vice President Kamala Harris serving as the tie breaker in her constitutional role as Senate President, Democrats have control of the Senate, and thereby have full control of Congress for the first time since the 111th United States Congress ended in 2011."

The rational is again the mixing of tenses and the fact that it's a current truth, but if that's not the standard then absolutely disregard. I just found it a little unwieldy to read. Milliquas (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done, Milliquas. Most of your request was implemented, but it removed some links which I believed merited keeping and had some Manual of Style stuff, like the date (Wikipedia doesn't usually use 20th in dates; see MOS:DATESNO). Also I slightly reformatted how Sens. Padilla, Ossoff, and Warnock were presented. See this diff for what I did. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Makes total sense. Appreciate the style links. :) Milliquas (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

California Senate Special Election Possibility

Padilla was appointed to continue Harris's term, which ends on January 3, 2023. Newsome has the right to call for a special election if he wants (which would presumably happen in November 2021), but he is not legally required to do so. I think until there is an announcement to the contrary it is safe to assume there will be no special election and Padilla will serve at least until 2023. If anyone has a better way of formulating this please feel free to share. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jdavi333 and GoldRingChip: There won't be a special election. See https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Proclamation-and-Writ-of-Election-signed.pdf Sdrqaz (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Newsom had the option. Thought Padilla was appointed to serve the rest of the term. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Nobody seriously thought that Newsom was going to take that option. It's just not in his interests to do so, unless he wanted to run for the seat himself. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
OK. PS - I wasn't shocked that he didn't chose a progressive, btw. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The language in the citation is "an election to represent…, in the seat made vacant upon the resignation of Kamala D. Harris to become [VPOTUS], shall be held on the 8th day of November 2022, in accordance with law." That seems to imply that it is a special election to finish the remaining 2 months of the term. If that citation is useful, shouldn't it be on the article page, not just the talk page? But I think it would be better to provide a reliable source answering this question definitively that's why I put {{citation needed}} on the article. Don't just revert it… provide the citation. —GoldRingChip 17:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    That does not imply that. Are you suggesting that California will hold two elections for the same seat in the Senate: one special and one regular? That usually only happens when the incumbent has died and state law mandates it, but this is not the case. And what would be the point? Elections cost money. The writ of election is about as good a citation on this issue we can expect. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm implying that it COULD happen: 2 elections on Election Day. That's happened many times. But this isn't about what's a good or bad idea or anything else. You or I might be right, but this isn't about our opinions on what California should do. That's not how encyclopedias work. The merits don't need to be settled on a talk page. Readers aren't going to see that. That's what {{citation needed}} is for. —GoldRingChip 19:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    @GoldRingChip: That sounds like unverifiable speculation to me. Has there been reliable sources covering the possibility of a special election following the appointment? Right now, the most up-to-date information we have is that writ of election, and it points to only one Senate election being scheduled. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
From here it seems like there would have been an election in 2022 anyways, so the 2022 election will decide who serves for the entire term. I am not sure why there would have needed to be a special writ of election, if there was going to be an election anyways, regardless of the 2020 presidential outcome. I don't think it is possible that the writ of election could be to fill the 2 months left of the 2016-2022 term, because the appointment goes until 1/3/23, and on 1/3/23 the winner of the 11/22 election will be seated. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not up to us, or to this talk page, to hash it out. Let California decide and let a reliable source make the statement that we can cite. These citations belong in the article. But, by the way, it's not unfounded or idle speculation… special elections in November to serve out the remaining two months on the same ballot have many times been on the ballot with a regular election to the next term. And, if it is speculation, then it goes either way: that's why a citation is needed. If you want to discuss the merits or even the likelihood of a special election, then I suggest going to Reddit. —GoldRingChip 20:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

GRC, this appears to be a case of WP:DEADHORSE. A citation has been provided in article space. Unfounded speculation is not the same as unverifiable speculation. Yes, there's absolutely a chance that California will hold two Senate elections in November 2022. That's why the speculation isn't unfounded. But that claim isn't currently supported by sources. What we have right now is one writ of election. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Senate power sharing agreement

link Is this worth mentioning? Until today, the Dems did not control the committees and GOP were still running them. There was also resistance due to McConnell wanting to prevent Dems from ending the filibuster. I don't know where it should be mentioned though, in the lede, or in major events, or somewhere else? Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't the Democrats have the majority in the US Senate? How are they being forced into a power sharing agreement? GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
They have the majority due to VP Harris being the tie-breaker but the Senate is even in members. Therefore, all the committees will have equal representation with a Dem chair who would serve as a tie-breaker. The agreement is similar to 2001 when GOP had majority in an even Senate due to VP Cheney's tie-breaker. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Organising resolutions are passed every Congress after negotiations between the majority and minority leaders. See the Senate website for more details. I'm not so sure that the Democratic chair will be a tie-breaking vote; the 2001 resolution seemed to have parties with equal representation and tied votes being considered passed by the committee. I'll write something up later for the "major events" section, but might have difficulties keeping it concise. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, you're right, a tie means passed by committee. A little blurb mentioning the power-sharing agreement in the "major events" section and perhaps a note under the committees section expressing how the Dem chairs officially started either today or tomorrow(whenever it all gets settled) and that GOP members were still chairing committees until this time. This negotiation may be more notable though because of Mitch McConnell's resistance to an agreement on the filibuster plus Lindsey Graham still chairing the judiciary committee and not holding a hearing on AG nom Merrick Garland. So yeah, I see why this might be hard to make concise. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

February 9 violation of WP:CRYSTAL

A discussion was started on my talk page and I believe it should be moved here for the sake of this discussion.

I believe that the mention of the impeachment trial of Donald Trump starting on February 9 (4 days from now) violates WP:CRYSTAL since it is not a 100% confirmed “Set-in-stone” event/tradition. I am starting this discussion (Hoping to end by tomorrow or the 7th) on removing the impeachment trail mention until it actually begins on February 9. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

January 9? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Meant February 9. My bad. I changed the title. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
From WP:Crystal: ″Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place″

This second impeachment is both 1)notable-as there is an article about it already and 2)almost certain to take place- because an impeachment trial is what is constitutionally required after a House vote of impeachment plus there is a scheduled date of Feb. 9. Yes, the date could possibly be changed but the date of the Super Bowl could be changed due to a Covid outbreak tomorrow. In other words, CB doesn't apply here. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Republican House members.

Need clarification here. When all are sworn in - how many House members will the Republicans have? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: With Tenney, it should be 212, right? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering, having looked at the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections article. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I think they're counting Letlow, who won his seat but died. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we'll need an RFC for that article & other articles with the same situation. There's a bit of a back-and-forth between +/- seats, with do we go by seats going into elections (232–197), or seats at last elections (235–199). GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It may be worth doing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums or something. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I've opened an RFC there :) GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

February 12: The US Senate voted by unanimous consent to award Eugene Goodman the Congressional Gold Metal. [1] 76.182.148.91 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider that to be a major event, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021 (2)

The date is now past January 20, 2021, so all of the bullet points under "Leadership" containing the phrase "until January 20, 2021" and "from January 20, 2021" must be updated. As it stands, Siri and Google Assistant only show the first line of, making it appear as if leadership hasn't changed. 98.209.117.76 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is still correct, the leadership was republican until the 20th and was democratic after. Bestagon ⬡ 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I won't make the edit but this should be a concern IMO. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally, that seems more like a problem with Siri and Google than with Wikipedia. It doesn't seem right for us to compromise on their behalf. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. This is the correct information, and it's the same format as other Congresses. Siri and Google are to blame here, not us. Bestagon ⬡ 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Diversity

The 117th congress was the most diverse ever, it seems that would be note worthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Retirements from current Congress

It would be worthwhile to add a section, either on its own or under Current Membership, noting those members identified their parties, who have officially announced that they will not be running for reelection in the next Congress by reason of retirement or otherwise. This is a different set of information from changes in Current Membership due to resignations and deaths etc, but rather it provides a picture of the prospective changes in membership for the next Congress. Rchau (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)rchau

Edit request

"TBD, 2021" → "April 13, 2021" in 117th United States Congress#House of Representatives. According to Politico, "Rep.-elect Julia Letlow (R-La.) is sworn in next Tuesday", which is April 13, 2021. This date is also reflected at Julia Letlow with the same source. 66.234.210.119 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, 66.234.210.119. Thanks for the information. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we wait someone is sworn in?

We are included in the summary, seats that are not yet sworn in (and in some cases, a runoff election has not taken place). This tends to leaves an inaccurate "total" as a no person can vote until they are sworning. Right now, the total is 212 Republicans but Texas 6th district has not certified a winner, even though we know it will be a Republican. That means there are only 211 Republican votes available to the Democrat's 220. Why not just wait?

We could include a note below the table that states that the house make up will increase by 1 Republican after the Texas 6th district runoff Election scheduled in July.

user:mnw2000

Invitation to a RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Hi everyone, I would like to invite y'all to a RfC started by me about RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States which is related to a section of this article. Please leave your suggestions if you're inclined to. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 12:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:117th_United_States_Congress/Archive_1&oldid=1142392547"