Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate

message: Is there any source to support this use of the term "historical rank"? The meaning of seniority, as defined here, rests primarily in number of years of continuous service. I would assume, from the name of the column, that a "historical rank" would essentially be a ranking of all senators by their years of continuous service, which this is clearly not (and which I think would probably be more useful for the sake of this article). If we want to include this particular metric, I agree that it should be given much less prominence in the table, and that the column heading should be changed to something like "Senatorial No." -- honestly, I am not at all convinced that it is a metric that deserves inclusion in the first place. In any case, to call it "Historical rank" is at best confusing, and at worst misleading. "Rank" is a pretty clearly-defined term in the context of this article, and this ranking of Rank does not follow that definition. - Waidawut (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Senate's chronological list calls it simply "rank", while the Senate's document on its traditions calls it "order-of-service numbers". It may be worth changing it from "historical rank" to avoid confusion. What do you think, ? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an interesting point! But let's not get too caught up in the importance of seniority itself. It's mostly for office space and bragging rights. Therefore, "historical rank" isn't really different. It should stay in these lists because it's closely linked to seniority. I'm not too concerned about what to call it. —GoldRingChip 22:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's call it something else then -- how about Senate Number? And let's move it to the end of the table. -Waidawut (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , since the historical rank is intimately related to the current rank, I'd rather that we kept that column in its current place. In a way, it doesn't really matter what we call it: "historical rank" or "Senate number", given that there is a note that explains in greater detail what it means. If you are going to choose "Senate number", remember to decapitalise the "number". Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  Actually, given that the Senate website refers to it as "order-of-service numbers" here, I'd rather we called it that. Or "Service number", in the interest of keeping the column width compact. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  They just wiped all the ranks. I'm looking at the chronical list, it doesn't list the ranking anymore. It's just gone. Mycranthebigman (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Historical rank" as a term 

message: What happened to Perdue on the list? Why only 99 senators? Are we waiting for tomorrow's results? He is still a sitting senator. J2m5 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , David Perdue left office on January 3. See this source, amongst others. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh wow, had no idea. Thanks! Sorry to be a use of your time. J2m5 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, ; happy to help! I believe this situation is unprecedented (or at least highly, highly unusual); the runoff date took me by surprise when I was first made aware of it. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  As far as I'm aware, Senators' terms always expire on the 3rd of January of the year in which their term ends, in the absence of a special situation brought about by an interim appointment. -Waidawut (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: , that was discussed at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate/Archives/2021#"Senior senator from Georgia". Having spoken to the Senate Historian's Office, they are of the opinion that it'll be up to the Republican Conference whether to let him to retain his seniority for committee assignments etc. On an official basis, I think Perdue will have lost his seniority but will de facto keep it, as the main advantage of it is up to Sen. McConnell. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  : "Having spoken to the Senate Historian's Office" → WP:OR. I'd rather let some reliable published source report on it. —GoldRingChip 14:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is original research, . We've discussed it before. I was just answering GoodDay's question. What the Republican Conference decides to do has no standing for this list anyways. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see.  OK.  If the Republican Conference has no standing, who does? —GoldRingChip 15:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , the seniority lists we have here are based on the Senate's lists. They're the official ones, so to speak. However, committee assignments are up to senators' respective conferences/caucuses. So Sen. McConnell is free to ignore the official list if he so wishes (though possibly subject to a vote in  his conference, but I don't see his decision being overturned). That's my understanding of the matter, anyways. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his Senate seniority (as opposed to conference or committee seniority) can be retained (or not) by a Senate vote. But things will be clearer after the election is over, and it’ll undoubtedly be reported in the media. JTRH (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

text: In a quorum call after all senators sworned in, Mr. Perdue wasn't on that list. https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3987 Noncommittalp (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The seat is vacant because his term expired on Jan. 3. It will remain vacant until the election results are certified. The issue is whether, if he wins again, being out of office for 12 days will wipe out the seniority he gained from his previous term. That's not yet clear. JTRH (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Perdue? 

message: So, if I'm reading the seniority tiebreakers correctly, if Georgia certifies both elections on the same day (so Ossoff and Warnock assume office on the same day as each other), Ossoff will gain seniority over Warnock by virtue of his last name?
Neither has held any public office that is used for tiebreakers (Senate, VP, House, Cabinet, Governor), and they're both from the same state (for Census population purposes), so... Alphabetical order by last name? Canuck89 (What's up?) 05:00, January 7, 2021 (UTC)
:, that's correct. Unfortunately for Warnock, his service as a pastor does not confer additional Senate seniority. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has now been sourced that Ossoff will be senior because he was elected to a full term.JTRH (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am aware of that Rules Committee source, but that appears to have been from before the turn of the century and I cannot find the CRS report to which it is referring. There is an Atlanta Journal-Constitution source saying that alphabetical order would be followed. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’ve seen a source (I thought it was cited here) that specifically refers to Ossoff and Warnock. JTRH (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

text: , , This is the full report by the House Parliamentarian with this claim. It's the 24th (2007) edition of it so it may be different in other editions (it's the same in 1976 and was first published in 1953), but I'm highly skeptical because it fails to mention the other tie-breakers like previous service as governor or house member. The Senate Historical Office's list includes these, but does not include a final tiebreaker, only that the rest have been used since no later than 1959. Therefore the 85th Congress and before has a different order from this master list and it may not be appropriate to include the tie-breakers much before then. One and only time (since popular election) two new senators would have had the same seniority was Claude Pepper and Charles Andrews, both special-elected in 1936, and the SHO gives it to Andrews alphabetically. I think the final tie-breaker should be removed altogether unless we have a more clear source: SHO does not actually explain why Ossoff is first. Reywas92Talk 01:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in favour of that change. I think it will be advisable to make it clear in the article's text that the master chronlist does not specify what the final tiebreaker is. Feel free to go ahead and make that change, including a link to this talk page discussion to prevent further edit-warring. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The House Parliamentarian is a reliable source on the rules of Congress. It only deals with the final tiebreaker because that’s the only one relevant to the specific situation being described. And there are other sources listing the full term/special election distinction rather than the last name distinction. JTRH (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the other sources? This reports the Senate Historical Office said "We have been given no indications at this time how that seniority will be determined," but since an Ossoff spokesman and Congresswoman Williams say it's alphabetical, so I'm quite inclined to believe that and restore it to the article. I did send an email before I found that so we'll see if we hear back but now I feel bad that they've probably gotten the question several times lately. Reywas92Talk 06:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Yep, he got back to me too! I'll add it with AJC. Reywas92Talk 18:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works for me. This may be hair-splitting, but would it work to say "The Senate's official records list Ossoff as the senior senator." [Simply cite the chronlist without offering an explanation as to why he's senior, then new sentence.] "The Democratic caucus considers him senior based on alphabetical order of last name."? I wasn't aware that overall Senate seniority was determined by party caucuses. (This is distinct from seniority within the party and on committees.) I thought the seniority rules and tiebreakers were bipartisan. Of course, this particular situation has either (depending on the source) never happened before, or only happened once, well before the current tiebreakers went into effect. Does that make sense? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to further confuse things ("Why is Ossoff senior" brings up 5.7 million Google hits...), the NBC affiliate in Atlanta reports it's based on term length, citing the House publication, while the Columbus, Georgia, newspaper quotes Holt from the Historical Office saying it's alphabetical (not sure if that's the same article in the AJC). I'm all in favor of a definitive resolution. JTRH (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think even the Senate knows. As you pointed out, seniority is a nonpartisan matter and it sounds as if they just punted it to the caucus. This would've been a lot better if they had been from different parties and the one with the later surname was elected to the full term. That would force the Senate to actually make a definitive ruling. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. It may never have occurred to the Senate that this particular combination of events would happen. If Warnock had won in November without a runoff (regardless of what happened to Ossoff), Warnock would have taken office shortly thereafter and therefore been senior (as was the case with Feinstein and Boxer in 1992, which is the last time I can think of off the top of my head that both senators from the same state were first elected at the same time). If Ossoff but not Warnock had won without a runoff, Ossoff would have taken office on Jan. 3 and have been senior, because Warnock would not have been seated until the 20th. If Georgia had no runoff requirement, the Senate would have had two extra months to figure this out. And so on and so on... JTRH (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to myself: Actually, if Georgia had no runoff requirement, it would have been Warnock and Perdue, so this whole situation would never have arisen. Let's blame Georgia's election laws. JTRH (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ossoff and Warnock seniority by last name (if they both assume office on the same day)? 

message: Assuming Padilla (Harris’ presumptive successor) is sworn in on the same day as Ossoff and Warnock, what is his seniority rank with respect to the other members given his previous history of government service? --50.216.78.121 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Padilla would rank above both Ossoff and Warnock if sworn in on the same day, but not because of his prior government service. Padilla's prior service is limited to state and local government (but not becoming governor). As a result, the criterion that would make Padilla rank above them is state population: California is more populated than Georgia. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is his seniority with respect to everyone else?  Is he still going to be 98th in seniority overall? --79.66.119.239 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Presuming he is inaugurated before or on the same day as Ossoff and Warnock, he would be 98th. If he were to be inaugurated after them, he would be 100th. J2m5 (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Good point. Usually yes, but right now the chronlist has Sen. Padilla's seniority date listed as January 20. That may be a mistake, so if that changes then we'll change the date. Hope that helps. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The other recent appointees listed have footnotes distinguishing the date of appointment from the date of taking office, whereas Padilla doesn’t. So absent evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that his seniority date is the same as the date he was sworn in, the 20th. JTRH (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Padilla's seniority date has been changed to the 18th in chronlist. Emk9 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Padilla’s seniority 

message: The six people who took office on Jan. 3, 2021, are a simpler and more current example of the tiebreakers. Would there be any objection to my updating what’s there now? JTRH (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben Ray Lujan, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, John Hickenlooper, Bill Hagerty, and Tommy Tuberville all took office in January 3, 2021. Their seniority rankings are determined as follows: The first three listed previously served in the House of Representatives – Lujan for 12 years, Lummis for eight, and Marshall for four. Hickenlooper is a former governor. Of the two with no previous government service, Hagerty outranks Tuberville because Tennessee’s population is greater than Alabama’s. JTRH (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I think the current example was intentionally chosen because of how complex it was; see GriefCrow's conversation with me above. I'm personally fine with either. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiebreaker example