Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Senate seniority table sandbox

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because it's being prepared for the next Congress, beginning January 3, 2013. --—GoldRingChip 01:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be useful as senators announce their retirements at the 2014 election. If we don't keep up with those here, it means I'll have to do it in my userspace again, only to respawn this page in 23 months with material copied therefrom, depriving users of page history. I've asked the nominating editor to explain the "for now" qualifier, so we'll see where this goes. -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked with the nominator, who can't accept that the proper course would have been to check the main article's talk page and seems never have heard of developing or storing material in subpages. Because of the latter, his "for now" was meant to convey (though it is hard to see how he expected anyone to take his meaning) that if it wasn't edited, it would be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great page, and should not be speedily deleted, as we will have to re-create a lot of Wikicode in three weeks' time. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

…well, it should be deleted

Ready to delete— it's been moved elsewhere.—GoldRingChip 16:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeMint-Inouye vacancies

Sigh... The best laid schemes of mice and men... We had a nice table, but now it's all up in the air again as Sen. DeMint has announced he will resign from the Senate "at the beginning of January" to become chairman of the Heritage Foundation. It's not clear when exactly he will resign... so this will shake up the seniority table... depending when the resignation becomes effective and a new senator is appointed, the new senator might be getting placed after the newly elected bunch or in front of them... So do we now place footnote with DeMint regarding his intention to resign? -- fdewaele, 6 December 2012.

Media coverage has said DeMint intends to resign before the new Congress begins, so assuming that will be true, I've removed him from the table. If things change, we can put him back as it is just a sandbox. For now, I've put I blank line for a new SC senator in ahead of the freshmen, as I would imagine DeMint and Haley would time things to allow for that. If not, we can change it to reflect that as well. The really outstanding question is who will take DeMint's spot as ranking member on the Commerce Committee. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One has senator-designate Scott (R-SC) already listed before the newly appointed senators. Likewise should "TBD (D-HI)" not be listed alongside Scott in stead of last, as this appointee (whoever it'll be but likely Colleen Hanabusa) will also be sworn in during the 112th Congress and might even be ranked before Scott (as the vacancy date of DeMint isn't clear yet, and the new Hawaiian senator can be sworn in directly upon appointment as that vacancy occured not through resignation but through the office of death)? -- fdewaele, 18 December 2012.

Of course, to answer my own question, according to the Honolulu Star Advertiser the following procedure has to be followed, which could puish the appointment to 2013:

Abercrombie will name Inouye's successor from a list of up to three recommendations from the Democratic Party of Hawaii. The appointed senator will serve until 2014, when an election will be held to fill out the rest of Inouye's six-year term, which runs through 2016. An Abercrombie spokeswoman declined to release the letter, saying Inouye had marked it personal and that's how Abercrombie views it. Meanwhile, the chairman of the state Democratic party, Dante Carpenter, met with Abercrombie today. Carpenter said the party hopes to have a new senator in Washington in time for the first day of the new congressional session so Hawaii won't lose too much seniority. The 113th Congress is scheduled to begin Jan. 3. The party's state central committee, which has about 80 members, will likely meet by conference call to select the three candidates. But Carpenter said the party isn't looking to do that this week, as it wants to respect Inouye's family and the contributions Inouye made. http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/183871561.html?id=183871561"

-- fdewaele, 18 december 2012.

Taking this in account, if the newly appointed senator from Hawaii is only sworn in alongside the newly elected ones on January 3, 2013, he or she still won't be dead last... as Hawaii was 40th in the census. This means the newly appointed senator would still rank before Heitkamp (North Dakota is 48th). And if it's Hanabusa - who is a one term U.S. Representative and has been prominently mentioned - she (according to the seniority rules) would rank 94th right behind Sen. Heinrich. Off course there's the precedent of Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) who has seniority from December 31, 2007 so the ranking could still surprise us... -- fdewaele, 19 december 2012.

That is unlesss the new HI senator isn't sworn-in until Jan. 4 or later. It is safe to assume however, that HI and SC will both take moves to get their replacement senator named before Jan. 3 in order to take advantage of seniority I would think. In either event, we can revise this accordingly before it goes into the mainspace on Jan. 3 to reflect the order they were sworn or outstanding vacancies as the case may be. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An oath does not a Senator make. The appointment is effective when the Governor makes the appointment unless the appointee is ineligible to serve. Such ineligibility may occur if Rep. Colleen Hanabusa is appointed, as she can't be both a Rep. and a Senator at the same time (she would have to resign her House seat first, as Kirstin Gillibrand did back in 2009).—GoldRingChip 18:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the poor choice of words. My point stands, it is likely that SC and HI will have new senators that are more senior than the class coming in in 2013, but if that is not so we can adjust the table as needed. The wonder of a sandbox. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what I think you are saying. We probably won't know until next week at the earliest (I read the HI Democratic Party won't make its list this week), so there is no point in moving it. The row could end up in any of six places (just before or after Scott, just before or after Hirono, or just before or after Heitkamp), and moving to any of the other five will require some change in code. So if we move it now and we are wrong, we will have to change around the code twice with no appreciable benefit. This is a sandbox, not an article, so it can be rough for the time being. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried updating the seniority numbering on the bio articles of Senators (as well as Representatives), but gave up ;) 01:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Scott was appointed on the 17th, so shouldn't he technically be above Schatz? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't appointment, the intention to appoint him was announced. DeMint has not yet resigned, so there is not seat to which he can be appointed. [1][2]- Nbpolitico (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Scott

It looks like our current listing of Tim Scott among the freshmen will be correct. The Senate website now shows that DeMint has resigned and his seat is vacant.[3] This media report says Scott will be sworn-in with the freshmen.[4] - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies in committee chair assignments vs Senate rules

There appear to be two discrepancies in committee chair assignments as weighed against Senate rules regarding the matter. First, Bob Casey would assume the chair of the Health Committee under Senate rules even though he is junior to Patty Murray on the committee (assuming the Democrats hold the Senate in 2014) because Murray already chairs the Budget Committee. Second, Mark Pryor would assume the chair of the Commerce Committee under Senate rules even though he is junior to Barbara Boxer on the committee (again, assuming the Democrats hold the Senate in 2014) because Boxer already chairs the Environment Committee.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more senior members can choose to give up their existing committee chairmanship in favour of another one. We won't know which they will choose until late 2014. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the list to reflect the general assumption that they most likely will not do so. If anyone feels that is a WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL violation, then please feel free to revert me.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Johanns

Mike Johanns should be removed from this list as he is retiring.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

Some things got moved around that shouldn't have been moved around (Seniority dates in the wrong column, committee and leadership positions in the wrong column, committee and leadership positions in the wrong place).

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with more experience of these matters desperately needs to help me figure out how to correct the formatting for this article since I'm failing miserably at it.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either someone needs to figure out how to clean up the various formatting errors on this page and remove the duplicate seniority for Pryor and Burr pronto or else I'm going to nominate it for deletion as frankly it's taking up time and resources that could be better spent tracking down vandals, spammers, sockpuppeteers, and otherwise disruptive editors.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sandbox - it is an area for playing around. It is not part of the Wikipedia mainspace and it does not need to be perfect. - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you list your issues here, I will correct them without misaligning the table. - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP, most of your edits were wrong. The bold-and-italics chairmanships and ranking member positions are taken from senators who are definitely not going to be in the next Congress. They are placed with the most likely person to take the role, but marked to show what they are, helping us find them when it comes to reflect what is decided for the 114th Congress. For Lamar Alexander, you added his former service as a governor. That is irrelevant. The only thing that should be listed is the thing that gives the most seniority over other senators. I have fixed the numbering and rowspan issues. -Rrius (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bennet's seniority date is in the wrong column, Jim Risch's committee and leadership positions entry is in the wrong column, Dan Coats' committee and leadership positions entry is in the wrong column, and Kirsten Gillibrand somehow ended up getting labeled chair of the Finance Committee when that is clearly wrong.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost eight hours since I pointed out the various errors on the page to you. Why haven't they been fixed yet?

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIX THE FRIGGIN' FORMATTING ERRORS NOW OR ELSE I REALLY WILL NOMINATE THIS PAGE FOR DELETION!

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to calm the hell down. As has been pointed out to you, this is not an article. This is a sandbox. If you want to see the actual up-to-date article, go to Seniority in the United States Senate. No one cares how many hours you've waited because this version of the table will not "go live" until January 3, 2015. -Rrius (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you nominate it for deletion since it doesn't really serve any purpose and in fact is basically wasting time that could be better spent improving the encyclopedia in other ways.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you are talking about, so how about leaving us alone? This is not in the article space, so it doesn't hurt you in any way. This is a WP:Sandbox in the Wikipedia space. It serves the purpose of allowing us to stay on top of these changes as they happen, rather than trying to deal with it all at once. As for wasting time, you are wrong twice over. If we choose to spend a few minutes at a time over the course of two years preparing for the massive changes rather than spending hours and hours, with a dozen editors falling all over themselves to make the hundreds of changes all at the same time, it is hard to see how that is a waste. What's more, it is for each of us as editors to decide how we wish to use our time, so your argument that it is a waste is just silly. If we're being honest, I think you feel stupid for having thought that this was an article when there is absolutely no reason to believe a subpage of a WikiProject would be. Finally, you need to learn about Wikipedia before going around making shrill threats about deletion. Your all-caps shout about nominating for deletion was ridiculous on multiple levels, the worst being that inaccuracy is not a grounds for deletion. When something is wrong, you fix it or ask someone to do it. And making increasingly strident calls for action just because no one is listening to you is not cool. This is especially true at times when people are off doing weekend activities. Eight hours at a low traffic page on a Saturday is not exactly a long time. So again, calm yourself. -Rrius (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you are talking about, so why don't you do as I asked above?

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, once again you don't know what you are talking about. The changes have already been made. Odd that you are so concerned about them when this is all such a waste of time. Also, "so why don't you do as I asked above" does not follow logically from "you don't know what you are talking about." I would urge you for a third time to calm down since it seems you aren't terribly rational at the moment. -Rrius (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a sandbox— a practice area. This article is not live.—GoldRingChip 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been told this twice before. had the concept explained, and been given a link to WP:Sandbox. I don't think it worth trying any longer. -Rrius (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When terms begin

Given the recent confusion about the starting dates for the new Mass. and N.J. senators, here are the rules for senator elected or appointed during a term according to 2 U.S.C. sec. 36:

Senators elected to fill a vacancy when no one was appointed take office the day following their election.
Appointed senators' terms begin upon appointment.
When a special election occurs before the Senate adjourns sine die, the appointed senator continues in office until the elected one qualifies (i.e., takes the oath), and the new senator takes office upon qualifying.
If the Senate adjourns sine die after the election but before the new senator shows up, the appointed senator's term ends on the day the Senate adjourns, and the new senator's term begins the following day.
If the Senate has adjourned sine die before the election, the elected senator takes office the day after the election (making the day of the election day the appointed senator's last day).

Yes, these are the rules for salaries, but the Senate (rationally) uses these as the rules for when a term begins (see this). The rules also give us the rules for seniority dates, except in two instances: The first is the special rule to avoid queue jumping that we already describe in the main article. The other was specifically related to Roland Burris, a case where the Democratic leadership overreached in an attempt to nullify Burris's appointment by the politically toxic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Burris's seniority date ended up being the day he brought a certified copy of his his certificate of appointment to the Senate. -Rrius (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are also missing the example of Al Franken. If the result of the election is not known the day after the election, then there is no winner to take office. The "election" concludes when the winner is known and certified. As this is just a working area and not in the main space, it doesn't really matter so I won't fight this fight. However, "after [election day]" is guaranteed to be correct, while "[the day after election day]" may or may not be. One cannot know without a crystal ball. - Nbpolitico (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not missing that example. The list above explicitly refers to senators elected or appointed to fill a midterm vacancy. Franken was elected to a full term. The rule for them is that if they get their certificate of election to the Senate before it first sits for the new Congress, then their term begins on January 3. If they do not meet that safe harbor provision, their term starts when they qualify (i.e., take the oath). I believe that rule comes from Senate rules. It conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Constitution ("the terms of Senators and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of January"), but it is unlikely to ever be litigated and unlikelier to be overturned. -Rrius (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Markey has not resigned from the House as of July 10, so his seniority date will not be June 26. The Associated Press is reporting that he will be sworn-in as a senator on July 16. Until we see another source that says otherwise, I think that it is fair to assume that he will resign his house seat at the same time which would make that his seniority date. I have adjusted the page accordingly. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His resignation is irrelevant. Because he was elected to succeed an appointee and there is no relevant sine die adjournment, his term and seniority will start when he is sworn in. -Rrius (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Boxer

Barbara Boxer should be removed from this list as she is retiring. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've prepared the sandbox for the 115th Congress (starting Jan. 2017) and have updated the list regarding the recent announcement of Sen. Boxer's intention to retire upon completion of her current term. -- fdewaele, 9 January 2015, 9:07 CET

Kelly Ayotte (2016)

Gov. Hassan has declared victory over Sen. Ayotte but the Senator hasn't conceded yet. See [5] [6] Given the small margin of victory (currently about 716 votes) this will most likely go into recount modus and may be contested. Question is when do we decide to scrap Ayotte and insert Hassan? For now I will leave it as it is though. --fdewaele, 9 November 2016, 18:20 CET.

The New Hampshire secretary of state on Wednesday afternoon certified the results for the state's Senate seat, declaring Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) the winner with a 716-vote margin over incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R). Although there probably will be a recount, for now I'll delete Ayotte and add Hassan inn the table. -- --fdewaele, 9 November 2016, 18:20 CET.

Page out of date

This page still reflects the situation as of the start of the 115th Congress. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft page used to prepare for future Congresses. The actual article is Seniority in the United States Senate, which is up to date. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perdue

David Perdue's term ends on January 3, 2021. If he is reelected (in the runoff on January 5), does he keep his seniority, or does he start over? Mahrabu (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually called the Secretary of the Senate's office to ask this: they basically said it would be up to the party, but they'd probably let him keep it. I guess we'll have to wait a couple months and see what they do. In the interim, maybe keep it but add a note? Sbb618 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page out of date

Alex Padilla, Jon Ossoff, and Raphael Warnock have now all been sworn in with a seniority start date of January 20 and Roy Blunt, Richard Shelby, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Richard Burr should be removed from the list as they are retiring in 2022. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leahy

Patrick Leahy has announced his intent to retire rather than run for reelection in 2022. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cardin and Carper

Tom Carper and Ben Cardin should be removed from this list as they are retiring in 2024. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Menendez

Bob Menendez should be removed from this list as he is retiring in November. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]