# 1890 Minnesota Senate election

Elections in Minnesota :
General elections
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
Federal elections
Presidential elections
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
Dem
2004
Dem
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
LMN
Senate elections
Class 1
1858
1863
1869
1875
1881
1886
1892
1899
1901 (sp)
1905
1911
1916
1922
1928
1934
1940
1946
1952
1958
1964
1970
1976
1978 (sp)
1982
1988
1994
2000
2006
2012
2018
2024
Class 2
1858
1865
1871 (sp)
1871
1877
1881 (sp)
1883
1888
1895
1901
1907
1913
1918
1923 (sp)
1924
1930
1936 (sp)
1936
1942 (sp)
1942
1948
1954
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984
1990
1996
2002
2008
2014
2018 (sp)
2020
2026
House of Representatives
1849 (Terr)
1850 (Terr)
1852 (Terr)
1854 (Terr)
1856 (Terr)
1857
1859
1860
1862
1864
1866
1868
1870
1872
1874
1876
1878
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1929
5th sp
7th sp
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1977
7th sp
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
5th
6th
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
1st sp
2024 :
State executive elections
Gubernatorial elections
1857
1859
1861
1863
1865
1867
1869
1871
1873
1875
1877
1879
1881
1883
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Lieutenant gubernatorial elections
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1966
1970
Secretary of State elections
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
State Auditor elections
1934
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Attorney General elections
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
State legislative elections
Senate elections
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1976
1980
1982
1986
1990
1992
1996
2000
2002
2006
2010
2012
2016
2020
2022
2026
House of Representatives elections
1910
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special elections
Senate
House of Representatives :
Ballot questions
2012
Amendment 1
Amendment 2 :
Minneapolis
General elections
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
Mayoral elections
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
City Council elections
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
2023
City ballot questions
Question 2 (2021) :
Saint Paul
Mayoral elections
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021 :
vte :
The 1890 Minnesota Senate election was held in the U.S. state of Minnesota on November 4, 1890, to elect members to the Senate of the 27th and 28th Minnesota Legislatures.
The Minnesota Republican Party won a plurality of seats, followed by the Minnesota Democratic Party and the Minnesota Farmers' Alliance. The new Legislature convened on January 6, 1891.
The election resulted in Republicans losing control of the Senate for the first time since 1858 when Minnesota was granted statehood.

## Background

In the late 1800s, Minnesota was one of the nation's most consistently Republican states, and conservative dominance extended to the State Senate as well. Since 1860, Republicans were the preeminent caucus in the Senate, not once losing a majority in the chamber.
That being said, in the years leading up to 1890, Minnesota had emerged as a center of the Farmers' Alliance, a progressive agrarian movement. At the 1886 election, two members of the Alliance had taken seats from the Republicans, foreshadowing the 1890 result.
It was not uncommon for local Alliance organizations to endorse members of the two major parties if their values were aligned, though it was more likely for Alliance groups to endorse known Democrats than Republicans. The same is true of the Prohibition Party and other groups.
In St. Paul, a group of 100 local power brokers, 50 from either major party, assembled in August 1890 with the intention of nominating a "Citizens' Ticket" for Ramsey County. The "committee of 100" hoped that local Democratic and Republican organizations would endorse their unity ticket, which they did in most cases.
In western Minnesota, two candidates were endorsed as the "Peoples'" candidates. It is unclear if these endorsements were related as part of a broader organization or if the "Peoples'" designation was only of local significance.
Three Republicans who lost their party's endorsement ran as Independent Republicans and won, then caucused as Republicans in the Senate. Two Democrats, one endorsed and one unendorsed, ran in the 36th District of Scott County. The endorsed candidate, James McHale, won.
Prior to the 1890 election, the Minnesota Senate had 47 seats. A redistricting undertaken in 1889 added 7 seats, bringing the total to 54. In particular, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties as well as western and northern Minnesota gained new seats. Goodhue County lost a seat.

## Results
### Summary

Republicans won 26 seats, two short of the 28 needed to control the chamber. The Democratic Party and Farmers' Alliance won a combined 28 seats.
Due to the fact that numerous candidates were endorsed by more than one party, it is impossible to calculate how many people voted for each party without counting votes multiple times. It can be said, however, that Republicans had certainly not won such a small percentage of the vote since Minnesota had been granted statehood.

### District results

The parties are as follows: Alliance (All.), Citizen's Ticket (Cit.), Democratic (Dem.), Independent (Ind.), Labor (Lab.), People's Ticket (Peo.), Prohibition (Pro.), Republican (Rep.)
| Dis. | Incumbent | Incumbent | Incumbent | Candidates | Candidates | Candidates | Candidates | Candidates | Candidates | Candidates | Candidates |
| Dis. | Name | Party | First elected | Name | Endorsements | Endorsements | Endorsements | Endorsements | Votes | % | Winner Party |
| Dis. | Name | Party | First elected | Name | All. | Dem. | Rep. | Other | | | |
| 1 | Tosten Johnson | Rep. | 1886 | James C. Kelly | | ✓ | | | 1,263 | 42.54 | Dem. |
| 1 | Tosten Johnson | Rep. | 1886 | Tosten Johnson | | | ✓ | | 1,232 | 41.50 | Dem. |
| 1 | Tosten Johnson | Rep. | 1886 | John Pendergast | ✓ | | | | 474 | 15.97 | Dem. |
| 2 | Charles G. Edwards‡ | Rep. | 1876, 1886† | Evin D. Hammer | | | ✓ | | 2,351 | 54.25 | Rep. |
| 2 | Charles G. Edwards‡ | Rep. | 1876, 1886† | Theodore Tousley | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,983 | 45.75 | Rep. |
| 3 | Otis W. Gibson | Dem. | 1886 | Oscar Ayers | | | ✓ | | 1,725 | 50.31 | Rep. |
| 3 | Otis W. Gibson | Dem. | 1886 | Otis W. Gibson | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,704 | 49.69 | Rep. |
| 4 | Marcellus Halvorson§ | Rep. | 1886 | H. C. Nelson | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,639 | 52.26 | All. |
| 4 | Marcellus Halvorson§ | Rep. | 1886 | Thorvald V. Knatvold | | | ✓ | | 1,497 | 47.74 | All. |
| 5 | Vacant | N/A | N/A | Jacob Armel Kiester | | | ✓ | | 1,893 | 67.83 | Rep. |
| 5 | Vacant | N/A | N/A | Charles S. Dunbar | ✓ | | | | 744 | 26.66 | Rep. |
| 5 | Vacant | N/A | N/A | George E. Francisco | | | | Pro. | 113 | 4.05 | Rep. |
| 5 | Vacant | N/A | N/A | David H. Morse | | ✓ | | | 41 | 1.47 | Rep. |
| 6 | Frank Arah Day | Rep. | 1886 | Frank Arah Day | | | ✓ | | 1,776 | 58.44 | Rep. |
| 6 | Frank Arah Day | Rep. | 1886 | James E. Grogan | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,224 | 40.28 | Rep. |
| 6 | Frank Arah Day | Rep. | 1886 | James D. McBroom | | | | Pro. | 39 | 1.28 | Rep. |
| 7 | Warrington B. Brown¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Jay LaDue | ✓ | | | | 2,342 | 48.94 | All. |
| 7 | Warrington B. Brown¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Herbert J. Miller | | | ✓ | | 1,871 | 39.10 | All. |
| 7 | Warrington B. Brown¶ | Rep. | 1886 | A. M. Becker | | ✓ | | | 572 | 11.95 | All. |
| 8 | John Clark‡ | Rep. | 1886 | Eric Sevatson | ✓ | | ✓ | | 1,666 | 62.07 | All. |
| 8 | John Clark‡ | Rep. | 1886 | T. J. Knox | | | ✓ | | 715 | 26.64 | All. |
| 8 | John Clark‡ | Rep. | 1886 | W. F. Portman | | ✓ | | | 278 | 10.36 | All. |
| 8 | John Clark‡ | Rep. | 1886 | John I. Wallace | | | | Pro. | 25 | 0.09 | All. |
| 9 | Thomas Evans Bowen‡ | Dem. | 1886 | Samuel D. Peterson | | | ✓ | | 2,198 | 45.35 | Rep. |
| 9 | Thomas Evans Bowen‡ | Dem. | 1886 | Andrew D. Stewart | ✓ | | | | 1,378 | 28.43 | Rep. |
| 9 | Thomas Evans Bowen‡ | Dem. | 1886 | W. E. Baker | | ✓ | | | 1,271 | 26.22 | Rep. |
| 10 | Edmund Mann Pope§ | Dem. | 1886 | George T. Barr | | | ✓ | | 2,832 | 51.21 | Rep. |
| 10 | Edmund Mann Pope§ | Dem. | 1886 | Albert R. Pfau | ✓ | ✓ | | | 2,698 | 48.79 | Rep. |
| 11 | William G. Ward¶ | Rep. | 1872, 1886† | Robert O. Craig | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,292 | 51.56 | Dem. |
| 11 | William G. Ward¶ | Rep. | 1872, 1886† | Cristoph Wagner | | | ✓ | | 1,214 | 48.44 | Dem. |
| 12 | Charles Schretz Crandall | Rep. | 1886 | Charles Schretz Crandall | | | ✓ | | 1,285 | 49.31 | Rep. |
| 12 | Charles Schretz Crandall | Rep. | 1886 | E. M. Morehouse | | ✓ | | | 1,253 | 48.08 | Rep. |
| 12 | Charles Schretz Crandall | Rep. | 1886 | D. J. Ames | | | | Pro. | 68 | 2.61 | Rep. |
| 13 | E. N. Dodge‡ | Rep. | 1886 | Jeremiah Grinnell | | | ✓ | | 1,091 | 50.18 | Rep. |
| 13 | E. N. Dodge‡ | Rep. | 1886 | William H. Edison | ✓ | | | | 969 | 44.57 | Rep. |
| 13 | E. N. Dodge‡ | Rep. | 1886 | A. R. Cohoon | | | | Pro. | 114 | 5.24 | Rep. |
| 14 | Milton J. Daniels‡ | Rep. | 1886 | William Worrall Mayo | ✓ | ✓ | | | 2,131 | 51.46 | Dem. |
| 14 | Milton J. Daniels‡ | Rep. | 1886 | Alonzo Thomas Stebbins | | | ✓ | | 1,956 | 47.24 | Dem. |
| 14 | Milton J. Daniels‡ | Rep. | 1886 | D. D. Kimball | | | | Pro. | 52 | 1.26 | Dem. |
| 14 | Milton J. Daniels‡ | Rep. | 1886 | P. H. Marsh | | | | | 2 | 0.05 | Dem. |
| 15 | Thomas Taylor Hayden¶ | Dem. | 1886 | James Albertus Tawney | | | ✓ | | 3,156 | 53.30 | Rep. |
| 15 | Thomas Taylor Hayden¶ | Dem. | 1886 | John Ludwig | | ✓ | | | 2,765 | 46.70 | Rep. |
| 16 | Ole Olson Lende¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Orrin Mott | ✓ | | | | 1,556 | 35.49 | All. |
| 16 | Ole Olson Lende¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Hans Lavesson | | | ✓ | | 1,338 | 30.52 | All. |
| 16 | Ole Olson Lende¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Henry M. Burchard | | | | | 1,301 | 29.68 | All. |
| 16 | Ole Olson Lende¶ | Rep. | 1886 | G. I. Larson | | | | Pro. | 189 | 4.31 | All. |
| 17 | Gideon Sprague Ives‡ | Rep. | 1886 | Charles Russell Davis | | | ✓ | | 1,407 | 55.72 | Rep. |
| 17 | Gideon Sprague Ives‡ | Rep. | 1886 | H. C. Randall | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,118 | 44.28 | Rep. |
| 18 | Thomas Welch¶ | Dem. | 1882 | Theodore G. Streissguth | | | ✓ | | 1,251 | 42.81 | Rep. |
| 18 | Thomas Welch¶ | Dem. | 1882 | Patrick Bray | | ✓ | | | 1,091 | 37.34 | Rep. |
| 18 | Thomas Welch¶ | Dem. | 1882 | J. A. Solomonson | ✓ | | | | 580 | 19.85 | Rep. |
| 19 | C. U. Chapman¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Edson R. Smith | | | ✓ | | 1,814 | 44.56 | Rep. |
| 19 | C. U. Chapman¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Dennis Doyle | | ✓ | | | 1,675 | 41.15 | Rep. |
| 19 | C. U. Chapman¶ | Rep. | 1886 | John Byrnes | ✓ | | | | 500 | 12.28 | Rep. |
| 19 | C. U. Chapman¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Alex Kenrick | | | | Pro. | 82 | 2.01 | Rep. |
| 20 | George Weston Wood¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Albert William Stockton | | | ✓ | | 2,011 | 44.66 | Rep. |
| 20 | George Weston Wood¶ | Rep. | 1886 | S. L. Crocker | | ✓ | | | 1,761 | 39.11 | Rep. |
| 20 | George Weston Wood¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Timothy O'Grady | ✓ | | | | 576 | 12.79 | Rep. |
| 20 | George Weston Wood¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Royal Plummer | | | | Pro. | 155 | 3.44 | Rep. |
| 21 | Anders K. Finseth§ | Rep. | 1874, 1886† | John W. Peterson | | | ✓ | | 2,078 | 41.27 | Rep. |
| 21 | Anders K. Finseth§ | Rep. | 1874, 1886† | Peter Nelson | | ✓ | | | 2,043 | 40.58 | Rep. |
| 21 | Anders K. Finseth§ | Rep. | 1874, 1886† | A. T. Conley | ✓ | | | Pro. | 912 | 18.11 | Rep. |
| 21 | Anders K. Finseth§ | Rep. | 1874, 1886† | T. Wilson | | | | | 2 | 0.04 | Rep. |
| 22 | Henry Burkhardt | Rep. | 1886 | Henry Burkhardt | | | ✓ | | 1,776 | 50.40 | Rep. |
| 22 | Henry Burkhardt | Rep. | 1886 | E. D. Southard | | ✓ | | | 1,674 | 47.50 | Rep. |
| 22 | Henry Burkhardt | Rep. | 1886 | George B. Albertson | | | | Pro. | 74 | 2.10 | Rep. |
| 23 | Edward White Durant§ | Dem. | 1886 | Jasper N. Searles | | | ✓ | | 2,115 | 46.25 | Rep. |
| 23 | Edward White Durant§ | Dem. | 1886 | James S. O'Brien | | ✓ | | | 2,011 | 43.98 | Rep. |
| 23 | Edward White Durant§ | Dem. | 1886 | Andrew Richmond | ✓ | | | | 447 | 9.78 | Rep. |
| 24 | Albert H. Truax | Rep. | 1882 | Ignatius L. Donnelly | ✓ | | | | 1,647 | 41.37 | All. |
| 24 | Albert H. Truax | Rep. | 1882 | R. C. Libbey | | ✓ | | | 1,305 | 32.78 | All. |
| 24 | Albert H. Truax | Rep. | 1882 | William Hodgson | | | ✓ | | 951 | 23.89 | All. |
| 24 | Albert H. Truax | Rep. | 1882 | C. M. Nichols | | | | Pro. | 78 | 1.96 | All. |
| 25 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | John Benjamin Sanborn | | ✓ | ✓ | Cit. | 5,103 | 90.51 | Rep. |
| 25 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | John Lindstrom | | | | Pro. | 535 | 9.49 | Rep. |
| 26 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Charles H. Lienau | | ✓ | | Cit. | 4,471 | 100.00 | Dem. |
| 27 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | William Blake Dean | | ✓ | ✓ | Cit. | 4,283 | 100.00 | Rep. |
| 28 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Hiram Fairchild Stevens | | | ✓ | | 2,327 | 49.31 | Rep. |
| 28 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Charles H. Benedict | | ✓ | | Cit. | 2,243 | 47.53 | Rep. |
| 28 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | John W. Rhines | | | | Pro. | 149 | 3.16 | Rep. |
| 29 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Samuel A. March | | ✓ | | | 4,062 | 83.94 | Dem. |
| 29 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Thomas H. Lucas | ✓ | | | | 512 | 10.58 | Dem. |
| 29 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Washington S. Cilley | | | | Pro. | 265 | 5.48 | Dem. |
| 30 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Frank G. McMillan | | ✓ | | | 1,784 | 52.59 | Dem. |
| 30 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Edward M. Johnson | | | ✓ | | 1,223 | 36.06 | Dem. |
| 30 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | William B. Hammond | ✓ | | | | 244 | 7.19 | Dem. |
| 30 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Charles M. Way | | | | Pro. | 141 | 4.16 | Dem. |
| 31 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Frank L. Morse | | ✓ | | | 2,835 | 50.02 | Dem. |
| 31 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Albert J. Boardman | | | ✓ | | 2,573 | 45.40 | Dem. |
| 31 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | George R. Whitcomb | | | | Pro. | 260 | 4.59 | Dem. |
| 32 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Alonzo Phillips | | ✓ | | | 3,722 | 55.46 | Dem. |
| 32 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | J. A. Wolverton | | | ✓ | | 2,399 | 35.75 | Dem. |
| 32 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Michael W. Morgan | ✓ | | | | 318 | 4.74 | Dem. |
| 32 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | W. M. Lawrence | | | | Pro. | 272 | 4.05 | Dem. |
| 33 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | John W. Bell | | ✓ | | | 2,992 | 56.81 | Dem. |
| 33 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Sever Ellingson | | | ✓ | | 1,806 | 34.29 | Dem. |
| 33 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Edwin B. Miller | ✓ | | | | 469 | 8.90 | Dem. |
| 34 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | John Day Smith | | | ✓ | | 2,062 | 49.18 | Rep. |
| 34 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Elbridge S. Barnes | | ✓ | | | 1,933 | 46.10 | Rep. |
| 34 | New constituency | N/A | N/A | Herman W. Knapp | | | | Pro. | 198 | 4.72 | Rep. |
| 35 | David Marston Clough‡ | Rep. | 1886 | Christopher S. Guderian | | | ✓ | | 1,693 | 53.95 | Rep. |
| 35 | David Marston Clough‡ | Rep. | 1886 | E. L. Reed | | ✓ | | Pro. | 1,416 | 45.12 | Rep. |
| 35 | David Marston Clough‡ | Rep. | 1886 | Edward L. Curial | | | | | 15 | 0.48 | Rep. |
| 35 | David Marston Clough‡ | Rep. | 1886 | J. W. Steed | | | | | 14 | 0.45 | Rep. |
| 36 | Mathias Nachbar§ | Dem. | 1886 | James H. McHale | | ✓ | | | 1,797 | 63.39 | Dem. |
| 36 | Mathias Nachbar§ | Dem. | 1886 | Mathias Nachbar | | | | | 1,038 | 36.61 | Dem. |
| 37 | Andrew G. Anderson‡ | Dem. | 1886 | Joseph W. Craven | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,955 | 61.83 | Dem. |
| 37 | Andrew G. Anderson‡ | Dem. | 1886 | Charles G. Halgren | | | ✓ | | 1,207 | 38.17 | Dem. |
| 38 | Alcinus Young Eaton§ | Rep. | 1886 | Alcinus Young Eaton | ✓ | | | Peo. | 3,044 | 51.95 | Rep. |
| 38 | Alcinus Young Eaton§ | Rep. | 1886 | William H. Houlton | | | ✓ | | 2,482 | 42.36 | Rep. |
| 38 | Alcinus Young Eaton§ | Rep. | 1886 | D. Murdock | | | | Pro. | 333 | 5.68 | Rep. |
| 39 | John S. Shields¶ | All. | 1886 | Silas W. Leavitt | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,566 | 52.45 | Dem. |
| 39 | John S. Shields¶ | All. | 1886 | Peter E. Hanson | | | ✓ | | 1,334 | 44.68 | Dem. |
| 39 | John S. Shields¶ | All. | 1886 | S. S. Squire | | | | Pro. | 86 | 2.88 | Dem. |
| 40 | Elisha Adrian Child¶ | Dem. | 1886 | Samuel P. Brown | | ✓ | | | 1,636 | 54.52 | Dem. |
| 40 | Elisha Adrian Child¶ | Dem. | 1886 | Axel Hayford Reed | | | ✓ | | 930 | 30.99 | Dem. |
| 40 | Elisha Adrian Child¶ | Dem. | 1886 | C. N. Perkins | ✓ | | | | 370 | 12.33 | Dem. |
| 40 | Elisha Adrian Child¶ | Dem. | 1886 | B. M. Record | | | | Pro. | 65 | 2.17 | Dem. |
| 41 | Marcus Johnson¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Gustavus A. Glader | | ✓ | | Peo. | 1,228 | 46.46 | Rep. |
| 41 | Marcus Johnson¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Nels Quam | ✓ | | ✓ | | 1,204 | 45.55 | Rep. |
| 41 | Marcus Johnson¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Charles E. Johnson | | | | Pro. | 211 | 7.98 | Rep. |
| 42 | Darwin Scott Hall¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Ferdinand Borchert | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,423 | 45.07 | All. |
| 42 | Darwin Scott Hall¶ | Rep. | 1886 | J. T. Brooks | | | ✓ | | 1,289 | 40.83 | All. |
| 42 | Darwin Scott Hall¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Peter F. Walstrom | | | | | 376 | 11.91 | All. |
| 42 | Darwin Scott Hall¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Morris Bishop Foster | | | | | 69 | 2.19 | All. |
| 43 | Hiram Eugene Hoard¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Erick O. Erickson | ✓ | ✓ | | | 3,479 | 64.59 | All. |
| 43 | Hiram Eugene Hoard¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Myron F. Barber | | | ✓ | | 1,907 | 35.41 | All. |
| 44 | Otto Alexander Bernhard Wallmark¶ | Rep. | 1886 | William S. Dedon | ✓ | ✓ | | | 1,636 | 51.79 | All. |
| 44 | Otto Alexander Bernhard Wallmark¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Levi H. McKusick | | | ✓ | | 1,523 | 48.21 | All. |
| 45 | Henry Keller | Dem. | 1886 | Henry Keller | | ✓ | | | 4,213 | 57.09 | Dem. |
| 45 | Henry Keller | Dem. | 1886 | Charles A. Gilman | | | | | 2,173 | 29.45 | Dem. |
| 45 | Henry Keller | Dem. | 1886 | J. L. Robbins | ✓ | | | | 993 | 13.46 | Dem. |
| 46 | Clarence Bennett Buckman¶ | Rep. | 1882 | George Geissel | | ✓ | | | 5,167 | 72.25 | Dem. |
| 46 | Clarence Bennett Buckman¶ | Rep. | 1882 | James C. Flynn | | | ✓ | | 1,985 | 27.75 | Dem. |
| 47 | George W. Thacker¶ | All. | 1886 | Herman A. Grafe | ✓ | | | | 2,606 | 80.71 | All. |
| 47 | George W. Thacker¶ | All. | 1886 | Hill H. Wilson | | | ✓ | | 623 | 19.29 | All. |
| 47 | George W. Thacker¶ | All. | 1886 | G. A. Kortsch | | ✓ | | | N/A | N/A | All. |
| 48 | James Compton¶ | Rep. | 1882 | John B. Hompe | ✓ | ✓ | | Pro. | 3,865 | 66.76 | All. |
| 48 | James Compton¶ | Rep. | 1882 | F. M. Mosher | | | ✓ | | 1,924 | 33.24 | All. |
| 49 | Daniel W. Hixon | Rep. | 1886 | Ole O. Canestorp | | | | | 2,298 | 43.80 | Rep. |
| 49 | Daniel W. Hixon | Rep. | 1886 | Daniel W. Hixon | ✓ | | ✓ | | 1,764 | 33.62 | Rep. |
| 49 | Daniel W. Hixon | Rep. | 1886 | Louis Peterson | | ✓ | | | 1,095 | 20.87 | Rep. |
| 49 | Daniel W. Hixon | Rep. | 1886 | Archibald A. Stone | | | | Pro. | 90 | 1.72 | Rep. |
| 50 | Elon G. Holmes | Rep. | 1888* | Randolph Michael Probstfield | ✓ | ✓ | | | 2,812 | 54.92 | All. |
| 50 | Elon G. Holmes | Rep. | 1888* | Elon G. Holmes | | | ✓ | | 2,308 | 45.08 | All. |
| 51 | Bernard Sampson¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Edwin E. Lommen | ✓ | | | | 4,790 | 62.79 | All. |
| 51 | Bernard Sampson¶ | Rep. | 1886 | John Cromb | | | ✓ | | 1,443 | 18.91 | All. |
| 51 | Bernard Sampson¶ | Rep. | 1886 | Alexander McKinnon | | ✓ | | | 1,396 | 18.30 | All. |
| 52 | New Constituency | N/A | N/A | Lorenzo G. Wood | ✓ | | | | 1,984 | 64.10 | All. |
| 52 | New Constituency | N/A | N/A | Hans O. Hanson | | | ✓ | | 1,111 | 35.90 | All. |
| 53 | New Constituency | N/A | N/A | William Prescott Allen | | | ✓ | | 2,226 | 52.02 | Rep. |
| 53 | New Constituency | N/A | N/A | H. H. Hawkins | ✓ | ✓ | | | 2,053 | 47.98 | Rep. |
| 54 | Alonzo Jay Whiteman‡ | Dem. | 1886 | Frank B. Daugherty | | | ✓ | | 3,572 | 44.72 | Rep. |
| 54 | Alonzo Jay Whiteman‡ | Dem. | 1886 | Charles P. Maginnis | | ✓ | | Lab. | 2,903 | 36.35 | Rep. |
| 54 | Alonzo Jay Whiteman‡ | Dem. | 1886 | Joseph A. Mannheim | ✓ | | | | 1,512 | 18.93 | Rep. |
    * Elected in a special election.
    † Elected to non-consecutive terms.
    ‡ Retired; did not seek re-election.
    § Lost primary election for party's nomination.
    ¶ Unclear why this senator was not a candidate for the general election

## Aftermath

When the new legislature met in January 1891, a flurry of activity and political dealmaking led to a strange arrangement of power in St. Paul. The 1891 session opened by Republican Lieutenant Governor Gideon Ives, and was swiftly moved to recess for three hours. In this time, Ignatius Donnelly organized the Democratic and Alliance members into a caucus (known as the "Combine") with him as its leader. To the great surprise of Republicans, the caucus was able to topple all their nominations for officers of the Senate.
By custom, Lieutenant Governor Ives would each day pass the president's gavel to Republican Senator John B. Sanborn to serve as president pro tempore (i.e., temporary) of the Senate. The Combine never elected a president of their own, making Sanborn the de facto president of the Senate until the start of the 1895 session.
The result in the 23rd District of Washington County was contested in late January 1891. The originally certified results counted Republican Jasper N. Searles as the winner by 4 votes, but after a tabulation discrepancy was discovered in Marine Township, Democrat James S. O'Brien was awarded the seat by the Senate's vote of 32 to 21 on January 29, 1891. This expanded the Combine's majority to 29 over the Republicans' 25 seats.