Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate/Archives/1

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

Comment

Next to a lot of Senators it says 'Former Rep'. This can easily be confused with Republican, but in this context it means Representative. 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What about senators who take office the same day? Are they egual by seniority or not???

83.24.195.141 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not. Seniority is determined by prior service in the House or Senate, or in the case of no prior service, the senator from the state with the larger population is senior.

Do you have a reference for this? I think it'd be good to include this in the article for clarification. Also, the article doesn't make clear whether the dates refer to when the Senators are elected/nominated, or when they are sworn in to office. Moxfyre 19:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That cannot be right. Why is Jim Webb above Bob Casey? Did his Executive Branch Service count? MarcusGraly 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


You will note, for example, that of the senators taking office in January 2005, the ones with experience in the House of Representatives are listed first. The three without such experience are in order of state population (Florida then Illinois then Colorado).

Why, then, is Ben Nelson above Hillary Clinton? I don't think he had any House or Senate service before she did, but she's "from" a much more populous state? Parableman 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There must be some sort of credit for being a governer. I would like to find out the actual fomula. Once I find it I'll add it to the site. MarcusGraly 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it:

determined by former service in order as senator, vice president, House member, cabinet secretary, governor, and then by state population

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_chronological.htm MarcusGraly 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion of the source of these rules? Is this decided by the senate? How?Dfeig (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is given in the very first reference. The Senate determines the rules.DCmacnut<> 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John Cornyn

So if December 2, 2002 is not the date used to determine John Cornyn's seniority, what date should be used? I would've expected it to be January 3, 2003 when the next class of incoming Senators came in but I won't change it yet becaues I just don;t know. Can anybody shed some light on this?--Dr who1975 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Refer to Note 4 in the article 70.123.216.219 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn;t get a response for over a week so I already dealt with this... please look at the article history before answering questions from 3 weeks ago. In any event, thanks for your input.--Dr who1975 16:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dole vs Alexander

Where does it say that the number of years that a person was a cabinet member is the deciding factor in seniority over other cabinet members in the same incoming class? I would've thought Lamar Alexander would be higher than Elizabeth Dole since he is both a former cabinet member and a former governor.--Dr who1975 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my best guess for why Elizabeth Dole is above Lamar Alexander in terms of seniority. They kept being switched on this page, but Dole is above Alexander on the pdf from the official Senate site so I think we should keep the order they have. Perhaps since Dole served two different Cabinet positions (Transportation under Reagan and Labor under Bush 41) that gives her the heads-up over Alexander. I'm going to find someone to e-mail to ask about Dole/Alexander and Webb/Casey and report back if I hear anything. Bridger 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

After comparing House tenure, it is clear that length of service in the House of Representatives trumps ANY amount of service as cabinet secretary, governor, etc. so I am tentatively assuming that this would also be the case for length of service as a cabinet secretary. I have again listed Dole's and Alexander's total years served as a cabinet secretary since Dole is obviously above Alexander and this is the most plausible reason why. Bridger 03:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Further update...I received a response from the Senate Historical Office:
Thank you so much for your astute observations regarding our “Order of Service” list for U.S. Senators. Your are, in fact, correct. Senator Alexander should rank above Senator Dole, and Senator Casey should rank above Senator Webb. Our list is compiled by our staff and is not verified by either the Rules Committee or the party leadership. This information is for internal use only, and is not considered the “official” ranking by those authorities.
Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will be updating our on-line list accordingly.
So much for an "official" list, I guess. :) Unless they've totally borked the rankings, though, it does seem like House tenure does matter before state population. I guess I'm still partially confused, but at least it solves the Alexander/Dole and Webb/Casey confusion. Bridger 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Holy crap! I was right. I didn't even think I was right anymore. BTW- the length of service in the house thing makes more sense to me since the House is a part of Congress. I wonder how two former governers (who are only former governors) or two former cabinet members (who are only former cabinet members) would be weighed against each other? Would it be length of service or state population. interesting though Thanks for your input. I need to give you a barnstar.--Dr who1975 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it's state population due to the positioning of Voinovich and Bayh (especially since Voinovich, a two-term governor, resigned that post in December 1998, a few weeks before his swearing-in as a senator...which means that Bayh, also a two-term governor, served slightly longer), but since that list is now admittedly not official I can't really be sure. I would assume, though, that since the Senate Historical Office is updating the pdf file that they would also look for, and fix, any other errors at the same time. Thanks for the barnstar, by the way. :) I'm just glad that we got some things sorted out. Bridger 02:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much they sifted through it. if you go back to the 50s the names are merely in alphabetical order.--Dr who1975 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Population rankings?

I was curious where the population rankings were taken from...and especially if those are really the population rankings for each state at the time of the Senator's entrance into the body. For instance, Chuck Grassley is listed above Chris Dodd as per their state's population; however, as per the official seniority page Dodd is in fact above Grassley. This leads me to believe that in 1981 (when Dodd and Grassley were elected to the Senate) Connecticut was more populous than Iowa. I am going to make sure this page is ordered as per the pdf from the official Senate website and will remove any "notes" that would contradict a Senator's ranking from the Senate page. Bridger 02:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


I was wondering about that. Is there somewhere we can go to get the historical population rankings for each senate's incoming class?--Dr who1975 16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps each state's population ranking is based on the last available census? If so, I imagine we could find past census information somewhere. Bridger 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've now cited the historical Census information. I've also added rankings to the wiki pages for the 70s, 80s, 90s (and the 60s too actually but that's irrlelevant to this page) and I've update the population rankings for the incoming Senators during those decades apropriatly. You may have also noticed I've started a project to do the Senate Seniority for every Senate class (so far I've worked my way back to 1959 when Byrd started, I'm taking a breather as I work on the 50s and 60s census rankings but I hope to continue later on).--Dr who1975 20:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Barrasso

John Barrasso (R-WY) was just appointed today- he would be 100/100, correct?

69.146.205.97 18:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an update button on the main article page just like the one on this discussion page... you could've added him in the same amount of time it took you to write the message above. It's okay though... someone else has done it.--Dr who1975 16:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Warner

As Bridge Partner previously discoverd, the "official" chronological list of Senators is innacurate but when the parties responsible are e-mailed about it they acknowledged the specific mistake and corrected it. I have sent them an e-mail regarding Senator Warner and the entire 1979 incoming class... I will let you knwo what their response is. My fix to the article for Senator Warner is more well documented than the previous information which is based solely on the Chronological list. I will let you all know what happens.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone wondered... I was wrong... that's why I reverted it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Talk:Senate Seniority (since merged here)

This article opens with several sweeping contradictions. It would benefit from a much more knowledgeable author. I have found it necessary to defer to the Encarta entry rather than this Wikipedia entry for its lack of authoritativeness. The Encarta entry reads: "As in the House of Representatives, power in the Senate is generally distributed according to the seniority system, in which political parties appoint their members to committee positions based on their years of service in the chamber. The most senior senators— those with the most years in the chamber—are ensured of appointment to the most influential committees, but because the Senate is relatively small, even junior senators usually serve on at least one important committee."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.222.222 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure of the proper title for this article, as it refers to the titles Senior Senator and Junior Senator equally. If a change is warranted, I am not sure what the new title should be. I am just wondering what others think. MateoCorazon 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a change. How about "Senate delegation seniority" or "Senior/Junior Senator" or something like that? Strange that half the equation should be ignored by the article title. --Chancemichaels 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
"Senate Seniority" That would cover both senior and junior. I am not sure what the wikipedia precedent is on title changes, or what wikipedia would consider most appropriate. Anyone care to clarify? MateoCorazon 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am going to take a chance and rename the article "Senate seniority". I just took a look at the naming conventions, and this seems to fit the major guidelines. The title change might attract some more experienced wikipedians who could offer an ever more appropriate title. Nonetheless, "Senate seniority" is clearly much more fitting than "Senior Senator". MateoCorazon 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For each Senator's page, I believe they should all be the same title. It would be much neater to have the standardized. I had done it previusly, but my edits were changed. Is they're anyway to make it so it is standardized?N734LQ 08:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

LBJ

"Notable exceptions to this include LBJ" - why is lyndon johnson reffered to as LBJ? One needs to go to LBJ page to find out who it might be. Isn't it a bit violating the neutral point of view, I think there is a lot people unfamiliar with that abbreviation. I would compare it to reffering to the independence day as the 4th of July. For someone from the Europe, the term 4th of July might not just "click"...

212.81.24.11 (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples

One might think of adding Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the list of influential junior senators.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Junior senators vs. seniority

The opener currently discusses the difficulty junior members of Congress have in advancing their respective agendas but goes on to note the accomplishments of a few states' junior senators. This seems misleading, as junior senators are not the same as junior members — a generic term. Any ideas on how to improve this discussion? Qqqqqq (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

President-Elect/Vice President-Elect

Should there be any notes on Barack Obama and Joe Biden noting they are President-Elect and Vice President-Elect? Both will be resigning their Senate seats in the near future and may not serve out the remainder of the Congressional session. Our last President-Elect from the Senate was John F. Kennedy who resigned on December 22, 1960. Our last Vice President-Elect from the Senate was Al Gore who resigned on January 2, 1993. Skywayman (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft table, 111th Congress

I drafted a projected version of the seniority table as it will look when the next Congress is sworn in. It's at User:Etphonehome/Draft Senate Seniority. Right now it assumes that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will remain in the Senate until after the new Congress begins, that Norm Coleman will win the recount in Minnesota, that Saxby Chambliss will win the runoff in Georgia, that Ted Stevens will not be expelled from the Senate until after January 3rd, and that there will be no unexpected resignations and/or deaths in the next two months. If and when any of these assumptions are proved false, feel free to edit the draft table. Otherwise it's all set to copy and paste into the article in January. -Etphonehome (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

      • If Al Franken wins he will go between Hagan and Merkley
      • Al Franken (D) Minnesota 21st in Population
      • Bluedogtn (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • If Jim Martin wins he will go between Shaheen and Hagan
      • Jim Martin (D) Georgia 9th in Population
      • Bluedogtn (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just looked at the most recent version of the entry, and it might be my browser acting up, but it looks like the table became quite messy since the new senators were added in, which, by the way, are not official yet! Are others seeing the table as I am, and what are your feelings toward adding the new senators before they're sworn in? Oking613 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that the table is currently somewhat messed (at least on Safari). Also, Larry Craig is still listed though the other senators leaving this week have been removed -- I believe that's why there are 100 in the table although there is a vacancy in IL. Shouldn't there be at least a note that Coleman's status is problematic? 128.119.240.144 (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)DaveMB

Seniority of John Kerry vs. Footnote 14

According to the table, Kerry gained in seniority by entering the Senate one day early. But Footnote 14 says that this trick has not worked since 1980. Which is correct? --KarlFrei (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

According to a contemporary source Kerry did gain seniority.[1]. I can't find any Cornyn articles freely available, but the previews I saw match the footnote. Either the question of office space is key; an early senator get either the office or seniority but not both, or the change was actually implemented later than 1980, i.e. between Kerry and Cornyn's elections. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota gap

Given that the Minnesota recount will not be concluded when the 111th Congress takes office, an interesting question is raised: if Coleman is re-elected, will he retain his seniority, or will the gap in his service render him instead the most senior of the class of 2009?

Whether or not a footnote to this effect gets added, I'd certainly appreciate a clarification on its own merits. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no vacancy until the Senate says there is. Harry Reid has said that they'd rather not say a vacancy exists,[2] so I guess if Coleman is re-elected, his service will be continuous. There will probably be clarification on the Senate website when the details are known. Coemgenus 20:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
But all the same, Coleman will not be a Senator for whatever period of time elapses. I mean, it's probably moot, as the recount at this point strongly favors Franken, but it seemed an oddity of rules. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Not to get too metaphysical about it, but the votes have all been cast and someone will have been elected Senator on January 3. The identity of that person is yet unknown, but I don't see why, when it is discovered, it should not be antedated to January 3. But, as I said, I'm sure the Senate will figure out what to do. When they do, we can update the page. Coemgenus 17:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Riddick's Senate Procedures dictates that a contested election is only declared vacant if the Senate determines neither candidate is entitles to the seat, which seams unlikely in this case given the partisan divide to date and a threatened GOP filibuster if Franken tries to take the seat. If Norm Coleman is declared the winner in the Senate election, there will be no disruption in his Senate service. His service would be counted as continuous from the start of his first term in 2003, since he is the successor to his own seat. His seniority will not change, and he would retain his current position in the standings. The only time a gap in Senate service has mattered in seniority is with Frank Lautenberg, and he was out of office for two full years. We won't know much about the status of this seat until the Senate formally convenes on January 6.DCmacnut<> 21:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds at though Merkley, at least, has been told that Burris and Franken would rank at the bottom. -Rrius (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Those sound like Merkley's views of the situation, but it stands to reason that Franken and Burris will be at the bottom. I still am hearing that they want to retroactively apply seniority from January 3, but if this drags out much longer (Franken at least) that whomever wins in Minnesota will be number 100. If Burris' seniority is applied to the day he's sworn in, and if they apply the same model to Minnesota, then Coleman will drop from 67 to 100 if he wins his court case, since officially there will be a several week gap in service. However, if one is to apply Burris and Franken/Coleman as being duly appointed/elected prior to January 3, then January 3 would be the date their term terms started and seniority begins. The replacements for Biden, Salazar, and Clinton would have a harder time to argue their seniority should be retroactive, though.DCmacnut<> 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your logic, and I suppose I may be reading more into Merkley's comments than is actually there (i.e., that someone told him Franken and Burris would be 99 and 100, rather than having come up with it himself). -Rrius (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
But since Burris assumed office before the end of the 110th Congress, should he not be more senior than all of the incoming Senators who were elected in the 2008 General Election and assumed office on January 3rd (for example, Mark Warner of Virginia)? Burris was not elected for the 111th Congress; he replaced a resigning Senator of the 110th Congress and took office four days before the 110th Congress ended and the 111th began. Also, for Franken's case, I can see how one would say that he had actually been elected in the 2008 General Election (no matter how long it took to certify that result) and that his seniority should be determined based on population, but he still won't have taken office until a much later date, so I don't see anyone trying to convince anyone else that his term, technically or otherwise, began on January 3rd because, frankly, it didn't. Ajgwm10 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
We were acutely aware of the three different places in the chart Burris could have ended up, but the Chronological List shows his seniority date at January 12, the day he presented a certified copy of his Certificate of Appointment. In reality, that is a farce, but it was needed for Reid and Durbin to save face after their attempt to exclude him blew up in their faces.
Minnesota is a weird case. The only reason he isn't seated is because the state was recounting the votes. There is a strong argument that his seniority should go back to January 3. However, as you noted, it is more likely his seniority date will be the date he is seated. Because we don't know what will happen, the best we can do is note the ambiguity. -Rrius (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Kerry and Harkin

The table lists Kerry as having a seniority date of January 2, 1985, and lists Harkin at January 3, 1985. The footnote regarding Cornyn notes that he entered service earlier, but that due to the 1980 Rules Committee change, his seniority date was the same as the rest of the people elected in November 2002. Why wouldn't that same rule apply to Kerry. As I understand it, the only way around the rule is if you are elected in a special election to fill the rest of a term on election day. That was not the case for Kerry; Tsongas resigned early for Kerry's benefit.

Both Harkin and Kerry served in the House, but Harkin served 10 years, while Kerry served 2. Thus, Harkin would outrank Kerry if they have the same seniority date. We could use a committee list to confirm, but the only committee they are both on is Small Business. The fact that Kerry outranks Harkin on that committee is not much to go on because Harkin is already chairman of Agriculture. If Harkin does outrank Kerry, Kerry would still chair Small Business.

Can anyone verify that Kerry actually has greater seniority than Harkin? The chronological list from the Senate is not good enough because it has been proven wrong in the past. -Rrius (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see the link in a similar thread above, but it is not convincing. It doesn't say he got additional seniority or demonstrate the issue was actually researched. All it says is that is why Tsongas resigned early, which is something Tsongas could have been wrong about. -Rrius (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... it was the same case here with John Warner and Carl Levin. Maybe we should ask the office of the Senate Historian? Cassandro (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Warner and Levin took office before the rule change. All that we really need is a committee list from when Paul Simon and Kerry served on the same committee (around the 99th 100th Congresses). Harkin and Simon had, for these purposes, the same seniority. If Kerry were above Harkin, he would be above Simon, and if below Harkin, then below Simon. -Rrius (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I have a copy of the Congressional Directory from the 100th Congress available, and can check on this. However, the 1980 Pell rule is not a formal Senate rule, but rather a Rules Committee policy. It applies only to Senators who take office early solely for the purpose of getting a better office. It is entirely possible that Tsongas resigned early, Kerry took office early, but Kerry did not take Tsongas' office or other wise "jump ahead in line." The same thing occured with Senator Dorgan in 1992. Kent Conrad did not run for reelection, and Dorgan ran to succeed him. After Conrad chose not to run, Senator Quentin Burdick died and Conrad chose to run in the special election that fall. When Conrad won that special election, he resigned his old seat December 14 and was sworn in to replace Burdick on the same day. Dorgan was then appointed to replace Conrad. Conrad kept his old office. I'm not sure how they treated Dorgan's office space - he probably got temporary quarters like all other freshman senators - rather than "jumping ahead." Dorgan's senority starts from Dec. 15 1992 even though he was elected for the term starting January 3, 1993. Cornyn's problem was the the only reason Graham resigned and Cornyn took office early was so Cornyn could get Graham's office. That is what triggers Pell.DCmacnut<> 20:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

According to an article linked to in a prior, related thread, the purpose was to gain seniority. Also, would the Dorgan precedent mean that if Burris is backdated it should be to December 31, not January 3? I guess the committee lineup will only be persuasive. Since the Rules Committee policy is different from the Republican Conference's seniority rule (which is unequivocal about vacancies created between the election and January 3), then the Democratic Caucus's rule could be different. Since the parties' rules determine seniority on committee, Harkin could outrank Kerry for office space, but fall behind him for committee assignments. -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New review

Can we please review John Kerry's seniority? Two websites at Senate.gov (both of which I just added as External links) say he started January 3, 1975, although we know he started January 2 (due to Tsongas's resignation and Dukakis's appointment). But nowhere do any websites cite the Pell rule. It's not up to us to make this decision (see WP:OR), so we need a reliable source to cite.—GoldRingChip 04:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've written to the SHO about this, Barrasso, and Gillibrand. The use date of appointment for everyone else, so it is not clear what is going on here. Obviously Gillibrand's service as a representative didn't end until the 26th, but there is no apparent reason why curing the disability wouldn't commence her term, but the other two are perplexing. -Rrius (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The only source we've ever had is the list of senators by seniority, and the footnote there indicates that Cornyn was subject to the Pell rule. With respect to Barrasso and Gillibrand, their terms started upong their appointment to the office, however as Rrius points out Gillibrand did not resign her House seat until the 26th and therefore was not "eligible" to serve on her appointment date. I'll have to go back and look at the master list to double check. Our unfortunate limitation is that the only source we can rely on for items like this is the master seniority list and [3], so we are dependent on the Historical Office for the information.DCmacnut<> 14:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I would also remind folks that from our past discussions, that term start date and seniority dates can and sometimes are different. Seniority is an invention of the Senate, and they get to decide when seniority starts, and the oath taking and signing your name in the "book of senators" is the deciding factor. That is why Burris, Barrasso, Gillibrand, Franken, etc. have a different seniority date than their term start. Cornyn is an outlier. But I'd be interested to see what the Historical Office says.DCmacnut<> 14:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The footnote in the article says that the Pell Rule means they no longer recognize Cornyn-esque added seniority for "the purpose of gaining advantageous office space." Clearly, there was some other reason Tsongas resigned a day early. Does the Pell Rule not apply to factors other than office space, like seniority for purposes of committee assignments? JTRH (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Just checked the official seniority list. Although Kerry's date has been changed from Jan. 2 to Jan. 3, he (who had no prior service in any office relevant to seniority) is still senior to ex-Rep. Tom Harkin, who took office the same day. JTRH (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Kerry has had seniority over Harkin for so long due to this apparent error (Harkin being a former Representative) that even if they change the date now, it will be hard to flip the two. Kerry's senator number is higher (1761) than Harkins (1763). I wish they'd add a footnote explaining this better. The one constant in all of this is that the chronological list is not perfect.DCmacnut<> 16:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not an apparent error. Kerry was originally appointed on January 2. Even if his seniority date has been changed to January 3, he's been in the Senate longer than Harkin. JTRH (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Third Factor"

Is the last column really necessary? Pushing the information to a fourth column rather than including it with the information in the third column seems to me to add unnecessary space to the table. The old form was simpler and nicer looking. -Rrius (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the extra columns. It makes it look like tie-breakers, which they are. Besides, it also allows editors to merge cells in the third column (2nd factor), just like in the second column (seniority date).—Markles 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the old columns, much less cumbersome and in tune with the rankings for the Congresses. Hekerui (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't be splitting items into subsequent factoirs at all. What happens if we have a four factor difference. Do we have a fourth factor column then?--67.62.103.180 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris/Kaufman and Isakson/Vitter

An IP editor made changes showing Burris and Kaufman as both having the seniority date of January 15, with Burris being higher because of Illinois's population. For Democratic caucus purposes, and thus committee assignment purposes, it is pretty clear that the positioning we have on the table is correct. Burris is after Begich on the committee list. It is going to be a while before we get an updated seniority list, which will give us the dates they are using. The Senate Historical Offices's seniority list actually shows inconsistencies in whether the appointment date or the oath date is used for appointees since 2000. Zell Miller, Dean Barkley, and Bob Menendez use the oath date. Lisa Murkowski, John Barrasso, and Roger Wicker are all listed by their appointment date. For Murkowski, the date is significant, because she did not take the oath until the first day of the next Congress, yet she has seniority over the senators elected in 2002. Oddly, Murkowski and Barkley were appointed within weeks of each other, and both before the end of the 107th Congress. It seems more likely to me, then, that the seniority list will show Burris, Kaufman, Bennet, and Gillibrand (or at least Burris and Kaufman) listed by their oath dates.

The IP editor also changed the reason for Isakson being listed above Vitter. The original reason was that Isakson served a few months longer in the House. The IP's reason was that Georgia is larger than Louisiana. It seems to me that the original reason makes sense. I the difference of two years matters, why wouldn't a difference of months?

I've reverted both sets of changes, but I am not going to change the dates of the four new senators without consensus here. -Rrius (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate website of appointed Senators, Burris's term is described as being "appointed on December 31, 2008, but credentials were not in order until January 12, 2009." An editor made that change over at Roland Burris using January 12. I added a reference and footnote, since January 12 is starting to seem like a reasonable compromise to me, as long as attention is paid to the fact that Dec. 31 is his undisputed appointment date. However, I would agree with you that seniority is different, since the dates don't always match up. Moreover, when it comes to committees seniority in the whole senate doesn't always translate to more seniority on the committee. Committee slots are decided by the party, so it's not uncommon for a senator to rank higher than another senator on a committee than he would otherwise in the Senate as a whole.DCmacnut<> 14:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some unknow IP changed the seniority date of Burris to his appointment date. However Burris was appointed to fill a vacancy on December 31, 2008. His credentials were found in order on January 12, 2009, and he took his seat on January 15, 2009. This is clearly stated by the official senate website which also gives his start of service as January 12, 2009 and ranks Burris thus... Now what is the correct date? I tend to agree with DCmacnut... Jan 12. Because if it were December 31, then he would rank before the Udalls,... which he clearly does not. So we change it back? -- fdewaele, 9 April 2009, 18:56 CET
The Senate has a new official chronology list of seniority, and it lists Burris's seniority date as January 12. That should settle the issue, as far as seniority goes. However, it's important to note that seniority and the start of term can be two different dates. For salary purposes, his term started December 31 (2 USC 36).DCmacnut<> 18:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Junior/Senior column?

I was thinking it might be a worthwhile addition to add a column indicating whether each senator is junior or senior, notified simply by a letter 'J' or 'S.' While I realise this has no formal bearing on seniority, it is somehow related to the topic; please bear in mind that the recently-added 'Class' column is completely irrelevant in terms of seniority.

I realise that people could determine junior or senior status for a senator by searching the list for the state's other senator; but in a list of 100, a simple notification system could add convenience. Kelestar (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My only issue is that junior/senior can change quite frequently, as evidenced by the recent appointments in the 111th Congress. A senator could alternatively be junior and senior in one congress, requiring more frequent updates. We recently decided to remove the junior/senior designations from senator infoboxes, so I see no need to add it here. Senator classes on the otherhand remain constant, and including it is consistent with the Members of the X Congress lists.DCmacnut<> 15:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clutter

It was bad enough when the seniority factors were broken out as separate columns. Now we have the class each senator belongs to, which is completely irrelevant to seniority, and leadership positions, which are related to seniority but not not the cause of or completely the result of seniority. I am going to remove the classes, and I hope we can get some discussion going here about returning to the original four column design. -Rrius (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


Change of party for Arlen Specter

Should there be a footnote regarding Senator Specter's change of party? There's one for Joe Lieberman. Also, Richard Shelby of Alabama changed from (D) to (R) back in 1994. None of these Senators had a break in their service so their seniority isn't affected but if Lieberman's change is "footnote worthy" then shouldn't Specter's and Shelby's be too?

Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC) mtminchi08

I'm not completely sure of what the the Lieberman footnote is trying to do. I would lean more toward getting rid of it or replacing it with a simple note that Lieberman caucuses and has seniority with the Democrats. -Rrius (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Party affiliation has no impact on seniority in the full Senate, only within the individual caucuses. I would recommend eliminating the footnotes.DCmacnut<> 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The idea wasn't that his party affects his seniority in the Senate. Since we now include chairmanships and leadership positions in the table, there is some relationship between the table and party seniority. For that reason, I figured we should include a note. If I had my way, we wouldn't have the footnote or the right column of the table. -Rrius (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems like today, Spector lost his seniority for committees. How will that be reflected in this table? (See http://www.rollcall.com/news/34648-1.html) user:mnw2000 10:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't be, aside from a footnote, perhaps. Seniority in the Senate is different from seniority within committees or the party caucuses, a point that could be better dealt with here. -Rrius (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I have adjusted Specter's seniority status as it was reported today that the Senate had voted to strip his seniority and send him back to #99 after his switch to the Dems. Metsrefugee (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? Can you please provide a source? Qqqqqq (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did you read that? This souce indicates that he only lost committee seniority. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
"The full Senate voted Tuesday to strip Specter of his seniority, dropping him to the bottom of the pile on every committee he sits on." http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/specter.seniority/index.html

Metsrefugee (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. But I wonder whether there a difference in seniority in terms of the Senate and in terms of Senate committees? I think CNN was just being imprecise with their language. Qqqqqq (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, look at this quote near the end of the article:

"As it stands, Specter is junior to Montana's Sen. Jon Tester, who has been in the Senate since 2007." Metsrefugee (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This in reference to his committee assignments. The vote they are talking about is the vote on committee assignments here: 2009 Congressional Record, Vol. 155, Page 5168 . Please stop editing the article to this effect until you've read up a little more and know what you are talking about. The news story has been out there since at least this morning and presumably last night. You are not the only one following it. -Rrius (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If the quote meant overall seniority, it would say he is junior to Gillibrand, who has been in the Senate since January. They mentioned Testor because the new assignment gives him greater seniority over Specter on the Appropriations Committee, often considered the Senate's most powerful. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


It is official. Specter has lost all seniority in the Senate. See the below link from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22180.html

"The blowback came Tuesday night: On a voice vote, the Senate voted to strip Specter of his 29 years of seniority, effectively transforming him in a blink-and-you-missed-it-moment from one of the most senior senators in the body to a lowly freshman on most committees. "

I will thus move him back to #99. Metsrefugee (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the seniority in the Democratic caucus, the overall seniority is based on entrance date in Senate service, as found in the official Senate documents - read an article before changing things around. I will revert this. Hekerui (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree; it should be clear to everyone that the seniority in question relates to committees, not to the Senate overall, which is the subject of this article. Coemgenus 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably should be noted, though, somewhere that Specter's committee seniority has been altered. Are there any other Senators who have special arrangements to their detriment (or benefit)? Qqqqqq (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Aside from Lieberman? Not sure. It should be noted that unless the caucus votes to the contrary, a very senior senator joining a committee for the first time starts at the bottom of committee seniority. In other words, committee seniority does not strictly match seniority in the Senate even under routine circumstances. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Metsrefugee, you have had the situation explained to multiple times, consensus is clearly against you, so quit lowering Specter unless and until you somehow swing consensus in your direction. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I can help resolve this. Who is the SENIOR SENATOR from PA. I think we will all agree it is Spector. The question does not ask about party designation or what the caucus votes for. The only unique case where this would change is where a senator leaves the senate and is later elected as with the case of Launtenburg, D-CT. user:mnw2000 00:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hekerui and Rrius have already said this better than I could on the difference between Caucus seniority and Senate Seniority. Also, the Politico article said "the Senate voted to strip Specter of his seniority." Based on the official Senate Roll Call votes, there was no such vote in the full Senate. This was a Democratic Caucus vote, and the article failed to make that distinction.DCmacnut<> 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the only Senate action was the passage of the two resolutions appointing people to those four committees that Specter is a member of. Even ignoring Specter and the chairmen and ranking members of those committees, you will see if you compare the lists to the list of seniority in the Senate that sometimes people who are more senior in the Senate are lower in seniority on the committees. -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Reid told CNN on Wednesday that Specter remains a senior member of the Senate."[4] -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Franken in the wrong place

If you look at the rules... Senators who were sworn in as a result of an election have retroactive seniority to the start of that Senate class. Franken is in the worng place. It's too late for Franken to pick an office space... the only one available is Coleman's (which is probably better than what he would've gotten had he been sworn in on time), but his seniority still is what it is and will affect his placement in future years. Please don't make me go and find the rules myself... I'm too busy.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that Franken's seniority date is January 3? Qqqqqq (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Franken's seniority date is July 7, which is the date given in the official chronology of senators. It specifically says "the senate seate was vacant until July 6." No one was senator January 3 to July 6. Franken was "elected to the term that began January 3" (from the official election certificate), but the election wasn't decided until June 30. The contitution says that's when his term started, but he's lost the first 7 months due to the contest. Franken did not meet the qualifications of being a senator (no election) on January 3 when this congress began, because of the contested election. We have a New York Times source in the article that says Franken "is the most junior senator," meaning is 100 out of 100. The concept of senate seniority is based on tradition, and is not codified anywhere in Senate rules. If you know of a rule that says otherwise, please provide a source.DCmacnut<> 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And I;m telling you the this 'it' you speak of and the NYTimes are wrong. If you care to help please read my comments in the thread below.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Franken Ranks Last in Seniority

Official word from the Senate Majority Leader:[5]

"Franken's service begins on the date on which he is sworn. So regardless of state size, etc, he cannot jump over members who were sworn on Jan. 6th," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in an email. "So Mr. Franken is Number 100 and is last in seniority for all members and, of course last, for Democrats too."

That should settle the argument.DCmacnut<> 19:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice and final, but the official Senate count puts him on last place chronologically, that should normally be sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You would think, but some editors have dismissed that document saying it's not a seniority document, just a list of term dates, when it is plainly a seniority document.DCmacnut<> 01:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Senators can be wrong you know. Has anybody talke to the Senate Historical Office? They should ask them about the relative rankings of Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Warner, and Jim Risch while they're at it. Last time User:Bridge Partner asked them... they even corrected the chronological list of Senators whoch was incorrect at the time (in it's depiction of Elizabeth Dole vs Lamar Alexander at the time) and appears to be incorrect again. Like I said... I am too busy to do this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your specific question about Shaheen, Warner, and Risch? That's the proper order based on term of service as governor. If all three had the same length of service of governor, the order would be Warner, Risch, Shaheen (based on population), but Shaheen's 6 years puts her ahead of Warner's 4. If you really want us to double check this with the SHO, we'll need to know your specific concerns.DCmacnut<> 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
And I'm not American. Someone else? Hekerui (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The chronological document you say is wrong is issued by the Senate Historical Office. I will admit that it has been wrong in the past, but why should the burden fall on us as editors to prove you right? We have three reliable sources (NY Times, Sen. Reid, and the Senate Historical Office) all saying Franken is 100/100. I have a contact at the SHO and can check, but if that person says "Franken is 100/100," will you then relent? The burden should be to find a reliable source that is contrary to what has already been found. Again, I ask you "what Senate rule dictates Franken seniority is from January 3." I've read the rules cover to cover and there's nothing there.
I still offer Huey Long and Rush Holt, Sr. as examples of individuals elected to a full six-year term, but who started service well after they were elected. Long's service pre-dates the 20th Amendment of 1933 which set January 3 as the start date, but was elected to a term to start March 4, 1931. He delayed service until January 25, 1933. Holt was elected after ratification, and elected to the term starting January 3, 1935, but did not start his service until June 21. The chronological document lists both of them as starting their seniority on January 25 and June 21 respectively, not March 4 and January 3. Based on your logic, their seniority dates are also wrong. Please provide proof that current reliable sources are wrong. We need more than just your claim that they are wrong. Continuing to say you're "too busy" won't get you very far.DCmacnut<> 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The burden of truth falls on us all. I'll see if I can get an e-mail to them together sometime. I invite any other editor to do it first.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, all editors should be vigilant, but when multiple reliable sources tell us the same thing, that is often the correct answer. Where reliable sources have been in proven in error in the past has been due to other reliable sources which state somethign to the contrary. In this case, there is no reliable source stating Franken is anything but 100/100 in seniority. Having said that, I've already sent an e-mail to the Senate Historical Office inquiring about the matter. We shall see what comes back. However, I am convinced based on the preponderance of evidence that Franken is 100th in seniority. On the (unlikely) chance that the Historical Office tells me otherwise, I will concede the point. I urge all other editors to do the same, should the Historical Office confirm the existing sources that he is 100th (more likely).DCmacnut<> 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Official word from the Senate Historical Office

At the request of User:Dr who1975, I e-mailed the U.S. Senate Historical Office to inquire about the formal status of Senator Franken's seniority. Below is the response I received.

Hello Chris –


Due to the contested election, Senator Franken’s term did not begin until July 7, 2009:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000457
For the purposes of the “order of service” rankings that the Senate Historical Office maintains on the Senate.gov website, the following guidelines are applied:
SENATORS' ORDER OF SERVICE
Beginning with the election of 1958, Senators are listed according to commencement of first Senate term by seniority (determined by former service in order as senator, vice president, House member, cabinet secretary, governor, and then by state population). The opening of a second Senate office building in 1958 provided members a greater selection of office suites. Eligibility for the most desirable suites was determined by the above-described seniority system. Prior to 1958, senators whose terms began on the same day are listed here alphabetically, rather than by seniority. The compilers of this list have been unable to determine when the Senate instituted this seniority ranking system for purposes of office assignment, but see no useful purpose served by artificially imposing that system on the pre-1958 era.
Mary Baumann

U.S. Senate Historical Office

Therefore, Senator Franken ranks last in seniority and his term started July 7, 2009, and is not retroactive to January 3, 2009.DCmacnut<> 16:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

rankings

Frankly there is no such thing as junior or senior senators, there basically all the same and have some dependencies.. This article is theoretically a joke....South Bay (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about junior or senior senators (which are traditional, not formal terms for senators from the same state). It's about formal seniority status for all 100 senators, which is an established Senate system.DCmacnut<> 14:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ben Nelson

Why remove the fact that Ben Nelson was a governor for eight years. We list other "last" person reasons with respect to the size of the state. Let's be complete. user:mnw2000 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it's needed in the table because it is not used to calculate seniority. If there were other senators elected that day that were lower ranked than him, then it would be justified to put his credentials as a former governor. Otherwise, the fact that he used to be governor can easily be found out by visiting his article. Dems on the move (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't agree. I think for the sake of completion, it does belong. Plus, it's a fact. I'm going to put it back.Tap1981 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Other "last" Senators have these factors listed only when they explain why that person is last (unless there's something I don't see). The table includes only factors that are relevant in determining seniority ranking. B. Nelson's tenure as governor has no relevance to his seniority. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

      • If you leave it blank, no one will know why they are last - Is he simply a citizen with no prior governmental experience? Is he a former house member with less experience? Listing that is is a former governor just makes it complete. user:mnw2000 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
His former office has no bearing on his seniority. Someone wanting to know his background can click on his linked name. Should Byrd be noted as a former House member? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, after some thought, I see your point. His governorship does explain why he is last. As long as a Senator's background is one of the seniority-determining criteria (e.g. not someone's being a state legislator or some other position not on the seniority-determining list), it should be noted. Is there any other Senator whose entry should be changed in this manner? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You (Qqqqqq) just posted in the comment above that Robert Byrd served in the House of Representatives prior to serving in the Senate. I'm therefore puzzled that you then ask if any other senator has other seniority related services that are not mentioned. The way the table currently reads, the column headings read Second Factor and Third Factor. Therefore, if Ben Nelson's governorship is not used as a second factor to determine his seniority and likewise for Robert Byrd's House service, I cannot see how it would fit into the table. Dems on the move (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Byrd's House service should not be noted because it is not used to calculate seniority; he is the only Senator with his particular date of service. Nelson, however, is last among the Senators with his date of service because of his previous occupation. I think I started to realize that Nelson's governorship actually is, in fact, used as a second factor in calculating his seniority. I was asking whether any other Senator who shares a seniority date with other Senators has a secondary or tertiary factor not mentioned. I should have been more clear. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The following share seniority dates with others and are last for that date, and none has his "secondary or tertiary factor" mentioned." Arlen Specter, Mitch McConnell, Kent Conrad, Mel Martinez. I agree that we don't need to list the secondary factor for these individuals. It's already apparent that they are last by virtue of being last on that day. The only time we've listed secondary factors for the last person on the list is when the state population is needed for multiple senators.DCmacnut<> 03:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is length of service a universal parameter?

Is this edit (and its associated edit summary) correct? Note that in the list of factors for seniority, there are explicit line items for time served consecutively, time served previously as Senator, and time served perviously as member of the House. I therefore question whether length of service is also considered for former presidents, vice presidents, cabinet secretaries, and governors. Dems on the move (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Although an interesting read, I don't see how this page answers the question if two former governors are sworn in on the same day, one served 4 years, the other served 8 years, would the 8 year former governor get higher seniority? or would it be the senator from the more populous state who would get the higher seniority? Dems on the move (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
For governors, it is manifest because of the order of, for instance, Senators Shaheen, Warner, and Risch. The order in which they appear seems impossible to rationally explain otherwise. Short of finding a source that explicitly says presidents, vice presidents, and cabinet secretaries are sorted that way, it will be hard to prove. Since the earliest date we know of for the current system, we haven't had any former presidents become senators and one former vice president. Cabinet secretaries may be provable, but it's probably not worth it. The current language, "may be used to break a tie" provides enough wiggle room in any event. It may be possible to find news articles discussing seniority (they tend to filter in any time from just after the election to just after new senators are seated, especially in years with a big incoming class or some such. The only problem is that journalist often either don't understand the system or oversimplify it for their readers' sake. -Rrius (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson is a former president who became Senator. Dems on the move (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess since Shaheen has higher seniority than Warner, the question is answered.
In that case the question is, should we eliminate the 3rd and 5th items from the list, as it seems that we should either include this for each and every factor, or else delete it since it is universal for all the other factors.
Dems on the move (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I said before the current system, which dates back, as far as the U.S. Senate Historical Office knows, to 1958. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrius (talk • contribs) 21:10, 28 July 2009

Lugar vs Hatch

Orrin Hatch, on his Senate website [6], claims he has seniority over Lugar. The claim is based on

"Under Republican rules when Hatch and Lugar were elected, the GOP used the alphabet and not state size to determine party seniority. So under those rules, Hatch is clearly No. 1." [7].

See this Washington Post article for more information. I think the claim is worth a footnote in the table.

Also, Bob Menendez's Seniority Date is in the wrong column. Simon12 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed Menendez. I also agree that your information should be noted in a footnote. I'm not saying you don't know what I am about to say, but I want it in the discussion for others who may come along. This is a list of overall seniority, which is use for office space, desk selection and placement, etc. In addition, each party has its own seniority system, which is used for picking committees, among other things. Hatch may well be correct, though we only have his word for it. That doesn't change this list, though. Party seniority lists would be wonderful, but we simply lack the information to create them. -Rrius (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand and I agree. But when you say "desk selection and placement", if you mean on the Senate floor, then, from the Washington Post article I noted, Hatch is in front of Lugar, and therefore is ahead of him in "overall seniority". So it's not just Hatch's word - this is a verifiable fact. I'm not suggesting the list here be changed - officially, Lugar is first, but it looks like Hatch is getting at least one of the benefits of being ranked higher. Simon12 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, you say "each party has its own seniority system, which is used for picking committees". Yet the article says "Senators are given preferential treatment for committee assignments based on seniority", which clearly here refers to "overall seniority" So which seniority system is used for committee assignments, "overall seniority" as the article says, or "party seniority" as you say? The Specter case clearly shows that it's "party seniority", and therefore I think the text in the article needs to be modified to reflect this. I would recommend that it say something along the lines of "Note that seniority on committees is determined by the party caucuses, and can on occasion be different than overall seniority. Simon12 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If the parties use their own seniority lists for determining desk selection and placement, by which I do mean on the Senate floor, then it may be that overall Senate seniority is meaningless. The article doesn't make the nice distinction between party and Senate seniority probably because it was thought they were the same. Clearly this revelation means the article needs some changes, but I would point out that Lugar also claims to be the most senior Republican. That is why I say we only have Hatch's word for his higher seniority. The article takes no position on who is more senior, so it is wrong to say the Post piece says Hatch is more senior. When the article says the caucus probably won't say anything until it has to, what it is alluding to is that one of those men would become President pro tempore, and the caucus would have to decide which. Hatch's argument about desk placement is not dispositive because Lugar chooses to sit in the middle of the back row of the middle Republican "wedge". Hatch sits behind the Minority Leader on the center aisle. For all we know, this is a battle that goes back years between the two, and it would be inappropriate for us to choose who is right. We do need to change the text of the article, though.
It just occurred to me that this list is still meaningful for determining order of precedence. -Rrius (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said the Post article said Hatch was more senior - the article basically says they have no clue given the conflicting evidence. And I think this article should follow what the Senate site says - which it does. (Lugar ahead of Hatch). But here are a couple of thoughts. Our article gives 4 perqs for seniority: committees, desks, office space, order of precedence. Offices and "order of precedence" are not party related - and we have verifiable sources for the two of them - the Senate web site (which says only that it's used for office assignment), and the Order of Precedence (although I would note the sources for Order of Precedence listed in that Wiki article use only "length of service" and alphabetical, which would put Hatch in front of Lugar!). The other two perqs, committees and desks, are determined by the party, so can use party seniority (see Specter), and so maybe need to be broken out somehow. Simon12 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
That is how I interpreted, "But when you say 'desk selection and placement', if you mean on the Senate floor, then, from the Washington Post article I noted, Hatch is in front of Lugar, and therefore is ahead of him in 'overall seniority'." Sorry if I misunderstood. The Order of Precedence article itself is poorly sourced, so I wouldn't make any decisions based on what it says. In any event, I think we are in complete agreement.
If the Republicans regain a majority (with Hatch & Luger still around), it'll be interesting to see who gets elected 'president pro tempore'. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the tie-breaker is a Senators age, Lugar is older then Hatch. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize is an old discussion, but I thought I'd lend some insider information. Seniority in the Senate does determine desk placement. Leaders in front center, than most senior Dem and R immediately behind. However, placement is not mandatolry. Ultimately, senators can choose to sit somewhere else if they want. Ted Kennedy was supposed to have the chair immediately behind Dan Inouye (4th row center) based on his seniority. However, Kennedy didn't want to sit there, so his desk was in the center of the very back row. He liked the additional room to walk and talk and display charts when he spoke. Also, if the Republicans have assigned Hatch higher seniority within the Party, then the party gets to decide where Hatch can sit. In the end, seniority really only matters in the selection of office space, and some priority in desk selection. But ultimately, the parties can decide their own systems, and senators can opt out. Leaders can also "jump ahead" of others in seniority when picking offices, too.DCmacnut<> 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Hatch/Lugar dispute has not yet been resolved according to this Washington Post article --> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302371.html LeahBethM (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Who has seniority: Russ Feingold or Patty Murray?

According to the Senate website, Patty Murray has seniority over Russ Feingold, EVEN THOUGH Wisconsin ranked 16th in the 1990 census while Washington ranked 18th. Why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.181.222 (talk • contribs)

It appears the Senate document is wrong. It's had typos and other problems in the past (such as listing term starts on January 6 instead of January 3 for some senators). Feingold is ahead of Murray in terms of Seniority based on the rules and state population.DCmacnut<> 14:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got an email in to the Historical Office, so hopefully we can clear this up. -Rrius (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

State of Senators and Party Affiliation

There is no need for the 'D' and 'R' designations since the names column is color coded. And the 'state' of each senator should be in it's own separate column just as the 'district' has it's own column on the page for Seniority of the U.S. House members http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_seniority LeahBethM (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The need for the party initials is debatable, but it is hard to justify yet another column just for the state. There are already more columns than is strictly necessary, but adding another would force too much information onto second lines for most viewers. There is no compelling reason for this list to match the House one. -Rrius (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Retiring senators

Hi! I don't know if this was raised already but I think it might be interesting to mark retiring senators (and perhaps those standing for re-election in 2010) as it would show whose seniority might get higher-ranked after the swearing-in. --141.35.14.94 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. 21, Kent Conrad, is shown in the green which supposedly indicates his seat has an election this year, when it does not. Since he was seated with the next Congress after a special election, while he entered on the same date as the others, the seat remains with its own class, not transferred to the class of the regularly scheduled elections class. 75.216.76.205 (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Good point, and you're absolutely right. However, when someone made this change in the depiction of the chart, it required the creation of a line between the date for the green-shaded group (Jan. 3, 1987, still in their original seats) and Conrad (same start date, but switched seats in 1994). This gives Conrad a blank white cell for a seniority date. While it might be inferred that he has the same date as those above him, would it be redundant to add Jan. 3, 1987, to his cell also, just to make it clear? JTRH (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is why sometime ago I added a class column between name and date so you could see at a glance what Class a senator was in. But that was deemed extraneous information by another editor. Goap23 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seniority of 2010 Senators-elect

User:Dunstvangeet has added commented-out entries for the winners of the November 2010 elections. I've expressed a concern on the user's talk page that I'll repeat here, since someone's already made an attempt at rearranging them: Coons, Kirk and Manchin were sworn in to fill unexpired terms, and can be sworn in before January 3. But the order when each of them will be sworn in is unclear - for example, I've seen news reports giving three different dates for Manchin's swearing-in. It's also possible that all three of them will be given seniority retroactive to the day after the election (Nov. 3). The seniority rankings will be affected by both of those considerations, as well as the outcome of the Alaska race, since a re-elected Murkowski will have a different seniority rank than Joe Miller, who would be 100th if he wins, since Alaska has a smaller population than any other state with a freshman senator. I'd suggest that we leave the list alone until these questions have definite answers. JTRH (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. I didn't see anything on this talk page about the dates, or in the hidden text, and I hadn't seen specific dates in the news. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. Your ordering may well turn out to be the right one. JTRH (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you scroll up two years on this page, you'll see a link to List of United States Senators in the 111th Congress by seniority. Perhaps we should create List of United States Senators in the 112th Congress by seniority, and work on the new seniority over there. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I copied Dunstvangeet's table over to my sandbox and have been updating it there. JTRH (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears the new information has incorrect tiebreaking for Blunt/Moran - both served 14 years in the House (not sure where Blunt's 16 years comes from as he was first elected in 1996) - Blunt will, however, remain higher on the list because Missouri is larger than Kansas. Also, there is virtually no chance that any of Manchin, Coons, or Kirk will get retroactive seniority. See Sen. Feinstein's seniority date - she dates from Nov. 10th even though election day in 1992 was Nov. 3rd. Looking at the list, you can see a few senators seated after special elections who are dated from the time they took their seats not from the date of the election (Scott Brown, Inhofe, Hutchison). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.33.4 (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
User:JasonCNJ asked me about that point, and I put a fairly lengthy couple of responses on his talk page. To summarize, I've found two examples of seniority being given retroactive to the day after the election, even if that's not when the Senator took the oath. In 1986, Terry Sanford (D-NC) won both an election for a six-year term and a special election for the last two months of John East's term. East died in June 1986 and Sanford defeated his appointed successor, James T. Broyhill, in the general election. The New York Times reported on Nov. 15, 1986, that Sanford would take the oath of office on Dec. 10. The official Senate seniority list (linked from the first reference in the Seniority article) gives Sanford's service as beginning on Nov. 5. Sam Brownback (R-KS) won election to the remainder of Bob Dole's term in 1996, after Dole had resigned to give full attention to his Presidential campaign. The Congressional Record gives Brownback's resignation from the House on Nov. 25, his Senate swearing-in on Nov. 27, and yet the seniority list has him taking office on Nov. 7. I can also tell you that the members of the 100th Congress were sworn in on Jan. 6, 1987, because Jan. 3 was a Saturday; yet, the official Congressional records list them as having taken office on Jan. 3. I have no idea why this retroactive seniority (for lack of a better term) seems to have been granted for some and not for all, but that's what the records indicate. JTRH (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds about right. My guess is they won't do it though. If they did, Kirk will get to leapfrog both Manchin and Coons as he served previously in the House and all 3 would have the same election date. Also - the footnote to Mark Udall will have to move. Come January, I believe Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) will become the most junior senior senator (she is estimated to be number 75 in the 112th) - though a win by Joe Miller in Alaska (which seems less likely than not) would cause that title to fall to Mark Begich (D-AK) (estimated to be number 80). You might want to double-check that, but looks to be the case given the listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.33.4 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I may be able to shed some light on this, including the examples of Terry Sanford and the 100th Congress above. First, there is no retroactive seniority back to the date of the election. All senators or congressmen elected to full terms have their terms start on January 3, which is the date dictated by the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. Sessions of Congress can start and they can take the oath late, but per the Constitution the terms start at noon on January 3. So that answers the 100th Congress issue. An exception is when no one has been elected or qualified before January 3, as is the case of Al Franken's term and seniority starting in July 2009.

With respect to Terry Sanford, he was elected in a special election on November 4. Title 2 Section 36 of the US Code dictates the start of terms for appointed senators, and those elected to suceeded them. It states that the term of a elected successor to an Senate seat starts the day after the election, but only if the Congress has adjourned sine die. The 99th United States Congress adjourned for the year on October 18, 1986, well before the election, so Sanford's term started November 5, the day after. Brownback is an interesting case, since he too was elected to a special election during a sine die adjournment. The appointee continues to serve until the sucessor is "elected and qualified." Sheila Frahm resigned November 6, so for whatever reason Brownback's term started the next day. By law he automatically became a Senator on that day, but he was technically still a member of the House. He still had to official resign his House seat in order to take the Senate oath of office, which is why his Oath was November 27, retroactive to November 7 per the provisions of 2 USC 36.

Appointed Senators have their terms start the day of the appointment, not their swearing in date, yet swearing in affects qualification and seniority. That's why Roland Burris's term of office began December 30, 2008, while his seniority starts January 12, 2009.

If Congress has not adjourned sine die, as is the case for the 111th Congress which is still in session, terms start the day the eleted successor qualifies for the seat. This depends on when the vote has been certified by the state in question or whether the elected successor holds other elective office. You can't be a Senator and hold otehr elective office simultaneously. The votes in Delaware and West Virginia have been certified. Since the resignations of Manchin (as governor) and Coons (county executive) were November 15 (today), today is the first day the qualified making today the start of their terms. Then, the normal seniority rankins take place, placing Manchin ahead of Coons as a former govenror.

The election of Mark Kirk has not been certified by Illinois yet, so his swearing in will occur in late November or early December. Either way, he has to resign his seat in the U.S. House prior to becoming Senator, and so far he has not resigned his House seat.

Hope that helps.DCmacnut<> 22:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Al Franken's term started in July since no one had qualified for that seat by January 3

Thanks for the detailed information. Of course, all we really have to do is wait for the Senate to update the official list, and that'll decide it. :) JTRH (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, DCmacnut, that was an incredibly helpful and cogent answer to the entire question. No retroactive seniority, the operation of 2 USC 36 to explain the few discrepancies, and everything is squared up once again. Thanks, DCmacnut. Well done, sir. JasonCNJ (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I second that. Thanks very much! JTRH (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all. It's a blessing and a curse of being a former Senate staffer for the Leadership. I'm such a geek.DCmacnut<>
You're in good company on the geek thing. I pretty much memorized The Almanac of American Politics in high school. :) JTRH (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Internal Consistency

Anyone able to explain why some notes start "This Senator..." and others have "This senator..."? Shouldn't there be internal consistency for consistent use? 75.204.31.89 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Help yourself to editing them in a consistent format if you want, but those notes will be outdated and removed when the new Congress convenes in any case. JTRH (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. 75.204.245.92 (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Former vs. previous

Sen Lautenberg is listed as "previously a U.S. Senator", although the factors listed above use "formerly". The use of previously stands out, and likely should, as the title remains unchanged, whereas it replaces the other positions. While the reference used for the list of factors says former, and then lists the positions, perhaps the list of factors should use "previously a U.S. Senator", if it's used in the table. Comments? 75.202.167.242 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Senior and junior senators from the same state

This article overstates the practical importance of being the senior senator from one's state. A Senator's overall seniority in the body is much more significant than whether he's been there longer than his same-state colleague. The fact that Tom Harkin is "the most senior junior senator" and Mark Udall is "the most junior senior senator" is an interesting bit of trivia, but that's all it is. Traditionally, the only distinction has been that the senior senator from the president's party in a state gets more of a say in nominees (judges or administration officials) from that state, but that's only when both senators are from that party, and I'm not sure how true it is in practice any more, particularly in the case of someone like John Kerry, who was the junior senator from Massachusetts for 24 years. Obama didn't decline to ask Kerry's input on candidates from Massachusetts just because Ted Kennedy had been there longer. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are only two months apart in seniority; Feinstein originally won a special election the same day Boxer won a regular six-year term, so Feinstein took office immediately and Boxer had to wait until the beginning of the next Congress. That doesn't mean Feinstein gets all the patronage for California. JTRH (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There's too much emphasis on the 'senior' & 'junior' stuff anyway. Under the US Constituion, all 100 senators are equal (with the symbolic exception of the president pro temp). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Seniority matters in practice, as does whether you're a member of the majority party. I just think the article pays too much attention to the senior/junior relationship between the two senators from the same state. JTRH (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, within each state, 2 Senators are equal. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Experimenting with a slightly different presentation of the chart

I have a different presentation of the chart here at User:JTRH/sandbox2. I condensed some information and specified Previous Service and State Population as tiebreakers, in that order. There's actually no case in the 112th Congress where any two Senators have to go past two tiebreakers to determine their seniority. I also included the all-time seniority rankings from the official document on the Senate Website. I put that there because it's a definitive source that could stop ongoing edit wars, as I gather from the hidden notes happened with Jim Webb and Bob Casey, Jr. There are no surprises or ambiguities on that list, except that it specifies that former senators retain their original all-time ranking, so Lautenberg keeps his number from 1983 and Coats keeps his from 1989. Let me know what you think. JTRH (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that the Senate hasn't updated the all-time list since the appointment of Carte Goodwin, so although we can figure out what the individual new senators' numbers will be, there's no official source for it yet, and those entries are therefore blank for the time being on my chart. JTRH (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I like it. However, I would remove all the unnecessary information about how that Senator was elected/appointed because it's really not important in this table and it adds too much clutter to the footnotes. (For example, Jim Inhofe…"Originally chosen in a special election due to the resignation of Sen. David Boren.")
I inserted those refs because I thought it would be useful to explain why someone's service in the Senate didn't start at the conventional time - Jan. 3 of an odd-numbered year. JTRH (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I've consolidated it into one ref for those originally elected in specials, and another for those originally appointed, as long as they aren't in their first terms. I left individual explanatory refs for Brown, Manchin and Coons, since their current terms expire less than six years after their election, and for Kirk, who simultaneously won the special for the last two months of Obama's term and the general for the six-year term. I think that's a bit more streamlined. JTRH (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
While I usually favor having more-instead-of-less information, it really clutters up the article. As it is, there are 22 reference notes. References should either be citations or explanations. In this case, however, it's just trivia. I suggest, therefore again, removal of explanations of the beginning of their service.—Markles 23:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. Do you think there should be any info at all about why a given Senator's term didn't start on Jan. 3 of an odd-numbered year? JTRH (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope. That's not what this article is about. I'm not saying that it's completely irrelevant; but I think it's tangential. If the reader is curious, she can click the Senator's link and learn more there. Hypertext is fun!—Markles 01:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Excellent point. JTRH (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea for two basic reasons. First, the current way of dealing with tie-breakers is more intuitive. The first one is first, and the second is second. Easy peasy. Having static "population" and "prior office" columns forces the reader to look around unnecessarily. The current format is simpler for the reader, and should therefore be preferred.

The second problem is the numbering. Using the chronlist's numbering elevates it to some official status; it has none. The chronological list is merely the way the Senate Historical Office's chose to reflect its research. It does not list double-list senators with multiple terms of service the way, for instance, presidents are, but it could just as easily have done so.

What's more, providing it gives the reader absolutely nothing of value. I just don't see the merit in adding this to the list.

On a less substantive note, "Ranking member" or "RM" is preferable to "RMM" as "Ranking member" is far more common than "Ranking minority member".

I had rather hoped we would not be having this discussion until after January 3 as JTRH and I had discussed. Perhaps people would agree not to change anything until after the changeover as I am not the only one will be less active during the holiday period. If we jump into this, consensus could easily shift in the new year as more people turn back to WP, leaving us in the position of having to unpick the format changes without undoing the content updates. -Rrius (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend to jump the gun. I just wanted to get feedback from some additional editors and allow enough time for discussion. I'm not planning to add this, or anything else, to the article until it's an accurate listing, which it will be shortly after noon on Jan. 3 (actually, I've read they're convening on the 5th).
First, the current way of dealing with tie-breakers is more intuitive. The first one is first, and the second is second. Easy peasy. Having static "population" and "prior office" columns forces the reader to look around unnecessarily. The current format is simpler for the reader, and should therefore be preferred.
The first category of tiebreaker, previous service (in whatever capacity counts) is listed first. The second category, state population, is listed second. I find that to be more comprehensible than a column which sometimes says "Former Rep." and at other times says "26th in population" or whatever. After our previous conversation about this, I added "N/A" to the column where two senators had no relevant previous service and the tiebreaker was the state population. The reader can easily look across one more column.
The second problem is the numbering. Using the chronlist's numbering elevates it to some official status; it has none. The chronological list is merely the way the Senate Historical Office's chose to reflect its research.
It's the numbering system kept by the Senate itself. That makes it the official source. It's not the product of some sort of subjective editorial judgment, and there's no reason to question its accuracy as far as current Senators are concerned. It might have required "research" to figure out seniority in a 19th-century Congress 100 years later, but everyone who serves in the Senate during the 112th Congress will have taken office and been assigned seniority according to the factors now being used, beginning with prior service in the Senate, moving down the list, and ending with state population. As I understand it, this system was adopted in the 1950's, which means there's no "research" required to figure out, under those circumstances, whether (for example) Richard Lugar has seniority over Orrin Hatch. It's better to have an official, definitive documentation of someone's seniority number than constantly fight the Jim Webb-Bob Casey edit war.
I'm also not going to have the opportunity to work on this over the holidays. I just wanted to put it out there for a bit more discussion before we make a decision as to which version to use. JTRH (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: The Almanac of American Politics uses "RMM," but either "Ranking" or "RM" is fine with me. JTRH (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I think leaving tie breakers in seperate "job" and "population" columns is easier to understand; the numbering 1-100 does have an official place, their spot on the order of precedence list (their Senate numer is official, but Lautenberg and Coats' demonstrate their breaks). This is the only article where all those notes make sense, and once some student prints it and takes it home for a project, hypertext is useless, not to mention going through 70+ articles of "nothing out of the ordinary here", and 20+ articles of exceptions that are not in the same place. The senior/junior item is trivial, but constantly referred to in all other media. "Most junior senior" et.al is probably only for those people who are interested in it enough that they would synth it and re-insert it if it weren't already here. 75.203.210.49 (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Responding to the IP: Most of this is nonsense, but I will respond to the ranking comment. I wasn't talking about the 1 to 100 ranking; rather, I was talking about the ranking out of thousands, which exists nowhere but in the chronological list. In fact, the rankings before the late 50s are a combination of guess and anachronism. We don't actually know when the current system for determining seniority began, but the earliest date they are sure of is something like 1958. In the early days of the Republic, seniority meant essentially nothing. Committees tended to be ad hoc, and officers tended to be chosen based on merit and politicking. It was only after senators started serving for long periods of time that seniority mattered at all. That is why I say including the ChronList ranking makes no sense.
I'll now address JTRH's comments:
1) We simply disagree about how columns should work. Frankly, to me, a table intuitively moves from left to right: the reader should not be required to jump around to compare information. In the end, I think we should go back to the old system using one column, which is still used for Congress-specific lists such as List of United States Senators in the 111th Congress by seniority. In any event, you think it makes more sense to have people look at one column or other based on topic; I think it makes more sense to retain left–right purity: we are probably not going to convince one another.
2)Once again, the numbering system is not official, is not used by the Senate, and has little meaning whatsoever. The Senate Historical Office is essentially a library run by the Senate that concentrates on the Senate's own history. The Chronological List was produced by it merely for convenience and does not purport to be somehow an official report of the order in which senators have held seniority. It admits by its own terms that it is not necessarily accurate, specifically as regards the point where the modern system entered into use. They say it was in use at least by 1958, but that is not the same as saying that is when it actually began. So while there is certainly no question as to whether Lugar or Hatch has Senate-wide seniority over the other (though the Republican Conference is a different question), there is just as certainly no official reason for saying that Lugar's being ranked 1705 has any meaning. The Historical Office's list is the only one that uses this particular method for counting, and noting that 1,613 humans served before the longest-serving senator or that Ayotte is 317 after Inouye might be interesting on some level, but certainly not enough to justify devoting a column to a second seniority ranking.
3)I am not arguing against using the ChronList to settle questions of which of the current senators ranks where, and nothing I've said should give you reason to think that. The list can serve as our source without our having to copy down the number they use for their own demonstrative purposes. It is enough to list Casey before Webb without having to resort to listing one as 1889 and 1890. In fact, using the numbers tends to stretch the source. The source is fine as a source for where senators are listed, but using the numbers creates the impression that the Senate actually ranks them that way, rather than their simply being a demonstrative tool created by the Historical Office as a means of presenting the information.
-Rrius (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an additional problem with the proposal. In the admittedly unlikely event that two senators show up from the same state with the same seniority date, the proposal wouldn't be able to cope with the use of alphabetical order, but the current system would simply list alpha order as the first factor. -Rrius (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you cite a source for your assertion that a document on the United States Senate's Website is "not official, is not used by the Senate, and has little meaning whatsoever"? The Senate Historical Office is the official keeper of these data for the Senate. What started in 1958 is the tiebreaker system - previous service, state population, etc., but the chronological list has been kept since the beginning of the Senate. It seems to me that you're conducting original research if you assert that a list published by the Senate is inaccurate - i.e., how, specifically, do you know it's inaccurate (or at least non-authoritative), and how can you prove it? JTRH (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, it is hard to prove a negative, but there are three main ways to address your request. The first is by turning to the document itself. It says in its opening paragraph, "This book is intended to remind current senators of that lineage by listing all members in the order in which they arrived. Each senator has been assigned a number to reflect his or her rank at the time of initial election. Up-to-date biographical information for all of these senators is available at http://bioguide.congress.gov." It makes clear that this was a list created by the Senate Historical Office for the benefit of senators, i.e., not for the Senate. It goes on to say,
That makes it clear the historical rankings are simply done on the arbitrary basis and that even the SHO is uncertain as to the accuracy of some of the placements before 1959. The list was clearly compiled from a review of the records of the Senate, and no where does it suggest that it is intended to replace those as the authoritative record.
A third way is to look at exactly what the Senate Historical Office, which created the list, is. Is it an operational arm of the Senate that determines seniority and makes authoritative statements that are binding on the Senate or on Senate officials? No, it is not. Here is how the Senate describes it:
Nothing in that can rationally be taken as making its output authoritative or official.
Of course another way to address the question is to turn it around: in exactly which way do you think the Senate as a legislative body uses the Chronological List's numbering choice for former senators? In exactly what way does the Senate need an authoritative, unique number for former senators. Grover Cleveland is listed as the US's 22th and 24th president. The SHO could just have easily numbered senators that way. It didn't, but there is no indication that it was anything but an arbitrary choice (as Cleveland's numbering is). As quoted above, the SHO says in the introduction to the list that "[e]ach senator has been assigned a number to reflect his or her rank at the time of initial election." If the numbers had some independent meaning outside the list, it would say that each senator's official ranking is used, or indeed may have said nothing at all. Instead, the SHO felt the need to say that the list assigns a number because senators, the intended audience, would not otherwise have had a frame of reference for the number. -Rrius (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob Portman vs John Boozman

I don't think a second criteria should be used to differentiate the seniority between Senators Portman and Boozman. They don't have equal time as Representatives as both came in to congress after a special election. The one with the most time as a representative - I believe Portman - thus comes before the other, making the second criteria (size of population of home state) in my opinion unnecessary. Can someone verify and perhaps change it? -- fdewaele, January 3, 2011, 19:19 CET.

Notes section

There are three different ways used to refer to the Senators in the notes section.

  • Full name: Tom Harkin, Joe Lieberman, Frank Lautenberg, Jeanne Shaheen, and Al Franken.
  • Senator last name only: Sen. Shelby, Sen. Conrad, Senator Webb.
  • Last name only: Cornyn, Gillibrand.

For simplicity, can we change this to a single style?

Also, there is a note detailing Frank Lautenberg's previous service in the Senate. Shouldn't there be a similar note for Dan Coats as well?

Mtminchi08 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with sometimes using first and last and sometimes only using last, but I don't think "Sen." is necessary as they are all quite obviously senators. -Rrius (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I've inserted the appropriate notation for Coats. I think the inconsistency in names and titles is due to the fact that different editors have used different styles and there's been no attempt to standardize them. Doing so would be a good idea. JTRH (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I standardized the Notes today.Mtminchi08 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Class colour shading

I'd like to add light-coloured shading for the different classes of senators because it can be difficult to do the math in your head for when a person will be up for election again. There are various times when I'm trying to figure out work out various questions in my head where that would be useful. It was also be useful when it comes to updating time because all of the senators who might need to be changed would already be highlighted. Anyway, does anyone object? -Rrius (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a really good idea, but wasn't that previously done using the seniority date column, and someone objected to it? I don't remember the details. JTRH (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but I figured it was a big enough change (or at least a tedious enough one) that I wanted to get consensus first. I probably should have looked back through old conversations, though. -Rrius (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I may be completely wrong about it, of course. It's happened before. :) JTRH (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You may well be right. I skimmed this page and didn't see it, but it could easily have been done in edit summaries (or indeed, I could have missed it), which isn't even worth attempting to investigate. -Rrius (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I skimmed through the revision history. I was partially right. On August 26, 2010, an anon IP added light green shading on the seniority date for those whose seats were up in the November elections. You, Rrius, removed it the day after the election, saying it was never necessary. I thought I remembered it as having been applied to everyone, but it turns out it was just the Class III seats plus the appointees from Burris through Goodwin. I didn't object to the election shading, but I think shading the entire group by class is better. JTRH (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox for new Senate

I have a version of the table updated for yesterday's changes at User:Rrius/Sandbox 5. The leadership and committee leadership roles in bold and italics are purely seniority-based choices made in consequence of the removal of current members. They are highlighted that way as a reminder to make sure they are checked before finalizing. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice work but there seems to be a mistake regarding Sen. Feinstein: her seniority date is in the wrong column. – fdewaele, 28 November 2012, 18:50 CET.
I fixed that. —GoldRingChip 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I also corrected the footnote regarding the most junior senior senator as in the 113th Congress Sen. Mark Warner will no longer hold that distinction but with Lieberman's retirement and Murphy's election, that distinction will pass to Sen. Richard Blumenthal. --fdewaele, 28 November 2012, 20:50 CET
Depending on when the Inouye and Kerry vacancies are filled, the "most junior senior senator" in the next congress will be one of the two new Senators from Hawaii or Massachusetts - Hirono, Warren, or one of the appointees. But as I've said in the past, this is an interesting historical footnote but nothing more than that. Strom Thurmond's longevity meant that Fritz Hollings was, I believe, ninth in overall seniority while still the junior senator from South Carolina. Hollings' influence was in no way diminished by the fact that Thurmond had been there longer than he had. JTRH (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The Massachussetts seat of Kerry will be filled later than the vacant Hawaiian one: Kerry will only resign upon confirmation as Secretary of State. Which means the seat won't actually become vacant until the end of January. That'll probably mean that Hirono (under the presumption Inouye's successor won't be appointed/seated this year) will become the most junior senior senator for a short while before giving the torch to Elizabeth Warren when Kerry's temporarily successor is appointed. -- fdewaele, 24 December 2012.

Move?

Should we move the sandbox out of the User namespace? How about to: Seniority in the United States Senate/Sandbox? or Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate/Sandbox?—GoldRingChip 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "factors" from Roberts to Cantwell be in the "second factor" column rather than the third? JTRH (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
yes that's an error, and there's a similar error with Sen. Boxer as well -- fdewaele, 28 November 2012.
Getting back to it, I don't give permission to move it. If consensus emerges to copy-and-paste it, that's fine, but that is not the only thing that has been in that sandbox, and I don't give permission to take my page's edit history. -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is commenting, so I've just gone ahead and moved it. -Rrius (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Resignation of DeMint

Sen. Jim 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... See his press release http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=8fcf7012-ddad-4700-9238-ae6c74e63bcc

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 announced intention to resign from the Senate? Comments? Opinions? -- fdewaele, 6 December 2012.

A footnote wouldn't be out of line at this point. WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from doing more than that right now. He has indicated the resignation would occur before the new Congress begins, but the new senator's appointment date, not DeMint's resignation, will determine seniority.DCmacnut<> 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it really necessary? I think what we've done in the past is just remove people when the time comes. And that makes sense with this table since it is always about what the current state is rather than what was or will be. As for the effective date, he has announced the resignation will happen before the new Congress. We of course have no idea whether the appointment will happen before or after (odds are before, but that's neither here nor there), but we don't really need to know; moving the person in the table in the sandbox is a simple enough task. -Rrius (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

New sandbox location

Someone who didn't understand that the sandbox was a sandbox, and not an article, move the sandbox to a new article. I cut and paste it to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Senate seniority table sandbox. It would be nice if we could get the thing back where it belongs, but that's where it is for now. -Rrius (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Kent Conrad

I fail to see why my request that Kent Conrad's switch from one seat to another did not affect his seniority be documented via the {{fact}} template keeps getting reverted. It is not obvious that would be the case, and one would think it would be simple to do verify. I've tried the obvious sources such as the Senate website, but their listing of all Senators ever by seniority makes no distinction between senators who switch to a different seat whether or not there was a gap in service or not. Kent Conrad gets two listings, just as Lautenberg and Coats do. Carolina wren (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There - I managed to find a source, which was all I asked for. Carolina wren (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The answer, as was explained to you, is that seniority is continuity of service in the Senate, not continuity in a single seat. Because there was no break in service, there was no change in seniority. That is obvious and has never been a matter of controversy. -Rrius (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Sen. Conrad moved flawlessly from one seat to an other: he resigned his original seat before he even retired from it but only upon taking the seat of the late Burdick to which he was elected by special election. It's entirely different from Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Coats in which case there were multiple years between their respective offices. Anyway, within a fortnight this issue will become moot. -- fdewaele, 19 December 2012.
Only because Senator Akaka has opted not to seek appointment to the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Inouye!--L.E/12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The decision as to whom is appointed lays with the Hawaiian Democratic party who has to provide a list with three names and ultimely with the Governor who has to chose one of those three. But even then the situation is different as Conrad was elected to the remainder of Burdick's term by special election, which is a different process in taking office than appointment upon vacancy. -- fdewaele, 19 December 2012.
If I had thought it a matter of controversy I would have used {{disputed}} instead of {{fact}}. The article had no source for the 'obvious' fact that length of continuous service was what mattered instead of length of service in their current seat. Indeed, even now we're inferring it from Conrad's placement in the seniority list on the Senate website rather than a specific reference to the rules by which seniority is determined. 'Obvious' facts can and have been wrong, which is why the manual calls for referencing even the obvious. Carolina wren (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
No, you are inferring. The rest of the world is using the fact that seniority is about continuous service in the Senate. If it were continuous service in one particular seat, it would be stated thus. This is not about an "obvious fact" that can be wrong. It is about a thing being defined and another thing fitting squarely within that definition. -Rrius (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
If his change of seat had affected his seniority, his seniority date would be the date he took his current seat in December 1992 instead of the date he originally joined the Senate in January 1987. That's not an inference, that's a fact. JTRH (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Which is precisely what I was asking to be included in the references for the article. When I raised my objection the only reference that had been referenced in the article gave both dates for Conrad (just as it gave both dates for Lautenberg and Coats) without indicating which was to be used for purposes of seniority. There was no reference that defined it as continuous service in Senate as opposed to continuous service in the seat. Carolina wren (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Seniority and holding other offices

Just wanted to point out given the recent kerfluffle in the edits over which day counts as the start of seniority for Brian Schatz, that even if there was a bar on him taking the oath as Senator until he had resigned his state office, there would be no bar to the Senate using the appointment date to determine seniority. Not that it matters much whether it is the 26th or the 27th in his case. Carolina wren (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Tim Scott

Do we have a reference that unambiguously states he is currently 88th in seniority instead of 94th? If DeMint had resigned a day early instead of 2 years and a day early, then even tho Scott was appointed on the 2nd, he'd have been treated the same as any other Senator swearing in on the 3rd and been only 94th in seniority. I can see the logic either way. Carolina wren (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

An appointed senator has their seniority date listed as the day of their appointment (not the swearing-in date), unless they hold some other disqualifying federal office. Since Scott resigned his House seat on January 2, he was able to immediately take his Senate seat on the same day. Canuck89 (have words with me) 22:48, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
An exception would be the Gramm/Cornyn scenario, as Cornyn was elected as Gramm's successor, but the Senate didn't give Cornyn seniority when Gramm resigned his seat early. However, since Scott was never elected as a Senator, we should stick with our standard policy of using appointment date for appointed Senators. Canuck89 (chat with me) 22:57, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
Our policy is irrelevant. What matters is what the Senate's policy is. I agree Tim Scott is most likely 88th in seniority, since as you said, this wasn't done in an effort to give DeMint's elected successor a leg up in seniority, which was happening so frequently as to cause the Senate to change the rules to put a stop to it. However, the impression I was getting from the local South Carolina press was that because DeMint resigned after election day, Scott would be gaining seniority from the 3rd, no matter when he took office. (Of course we all know reporters never make mistakes, and neither do Wikipedians.) Carolina wren (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Terms begin with appointment, with the exception that sitting House members have to resign before the appointment takes effect. The Senate Historical Office was confused about this, but has since corrected itself (see Brian Schatz). The chronological list has not been updated, but we can be confident that Scott will be treated the same way all other appointed senators (except Roland Burris) have been treated. What the South Carolina press thinks is irrelevant because they don't know what they are talking about. In fact, the Senate Disbursement Office seem to be the only ones who don't screw this up. -Rrius (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, the Senate website list's Scott's service date as January 3, not January 2 [9] - Nbpolitico (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's weird, because this page, which we use as a reference in the article, says January 2. Two pages on the same website disagreeing.—GoldRingChip 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
And the Congress Bioguide which clearly states his appointment became effective upon his House resignation on January 2. I'm assuming different people wrote each of these pages, as it looks like yet another case of people mixing up the difference between appointment dates and swearing-in dates. Canuck89 (have words with me) 22:25, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
In any event, since the chronlist.pdf has been updated, with Scott listed as Senator #1933, I consider this mostly resolved. (I say mostly rather than completely because of the discrepancy between how it handles Gillibrand. It gives the 27th, the day she was sworn in rather than the 26th, the day she resigned from the House as the day her service started. In her case, it didn't matter which day, so I'm inclined to take the use of the 27th most likely as an error.) Does anyone know if Scott swore in before or after noon on the 3rd? Anyway, absent some firm evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to worry about it further. Carolina wren (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Scott took the oath with the other new Senators a little bit after noon.—GoldRingChip 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hadn't seen that PDF. Yes, that certainly resolves any question - Scott is more senior than the new class and his appointment took effect while the 112th Congress was still alive. Many thanks for pointing it out. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Top of the List

Should we put "Dean of the Senate" above "President Pro Tempore" on the list of Leahy's "Committee and leadership positions" column, and both of them above Chair of Judiciary. My rationale is that Dean is defined by being #1, while PPT is just the most senior of the majority party (and not necessarily #1). Also, the PPT's job is not about Seniority as it's an elected position which only recently has been related to seniority. The Dean is just an honorary position, or even less than that because frankly it has no implications or importance. What do you think?—GoldRingChip 03:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As the Dean of the Senate isn't a real thing and has no formal or informal responsibilities (as opposed to in the House where the Dean is recognized to swear-in the Speaker-elect), I would say it should be last if mentioned at all. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"Dean of the Senate" is indeed an informal honorary courtesy title for the longest continously serving senate member regardless of party and is a title which, unlike the President Pro Tempore position, which is often held at the same time, brings no leadership position or special prerogatives or entitlement. In that it differs from the similar position in the British Parliament of Father of the House, who has the task to preside over the election of a new Speaker whenever that office becomes vacant. So as it strictly speaking isn't a "Committee and leadership position" as used in the last column, if one adheres strictly to that criterium, it actually shouldn't be mentioned there, but personally I don't mind to have it put there whether it's in first place or last... So, to me this discussion seems to be a bit of a non issue... - fdewaele (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2013 (CET)
That's an interesting point I hadn't considered. Although I once moved it to the "Rank" column for the 113th Congress, when that was in the sandbox.
Looked kind of like this (note that I also made the Rank column into header cells):
It's not wider or taller than the current version:
How does this look?—GoldRingChip 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think putting it in the rank column is a great idea! - Nbpolitico (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done—GoldRingChip 16:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a terrible idea since it conveys very little information and is not in a place where anyone would look for information. My first preference would be to list it third, my second is to put it in a footnote like most senior junior, and my third is to simply leave it out.

Kerry

John Kerry is no longer a U.S. Senator. He began as Secretary of State today. His place should be removed, the entire article should be adjusted upwards accordingly in number of seniority and his successor Mo Cowan needs to be added at the bottom. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

His resignation will take effect at 4 pm this afternoon, there's plenty of time to make the change. Cowan should not be added until he's sworn in. Fitnr (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but: Cowan's appointment is effective at the time of Kerry's resignation, i.e. 4pm. An oath does not a Senator make.—GoldRingChip 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Senators who are retiring or likely to retire should be annotated

Senators who are retiring or likely to retire should be annotated so that when it comes time to update this list for the 114th Congress two years from now, it will be easy to see who retired or was defeated for re-election without having to go through each entry under a year that started a Congress in this election cycle (1979, 1985, 1997, 2003, 2009) to try to figure that out.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We edit a version of the table in a sandbox, so such notes here aren't necessary. -Rrius (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Appointed from House note

Seven of the eight senators with the note regarding effective dates (and therefore seniority dates) for appointments from the House didn't need it:

  1. James Inhofe, Ron Wyden, and Mark Kirk were serving in the House when they were elected to serve unexpired terms. Unlike appointed senators, those elected at special elections take office when they show up to take the oath unless the Senate is adjourned sine die or adjourns sine die before they can show up.
  2. Max Baucus and Bob Menendez resigned from the House the day before they were appointed to the Senate.
  3. Roger Wicker and Tim Scott resigned from the House the day they were appointed to the Senate. As such, there was no delay in effect for the appointments requiring the note.

For the four senators in items two and three, I've added the other note regarding appointments. -Rrius (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

How is Kirsten Gillibrand different from these?—GoldRingChip 13:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
She was appointed but didn't resign her House seat for several days, resulting in a delay before she became qualified to be a Senator. - Nbpolitico (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Weren't Wicker and Scott the same thing?—GoldRingChip 14:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Not sure about Wicker. Scott wasn't and couldn't be formally appointed until after he resigned his house seat because Jim DeMint had not yet resigned from the Senate. - Nbpolitico (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
DeMint had resigned 1/1/13, and Scott was appointed. But his appointment wasn't effective until Scott resigned from the House on 1/2/13. Sounds like Gillibrand, and I think that's the same with the rest of these people.—GoldRingChip 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Gillibrand couldn't resign her House seat until after 4:16 P.M. on January 25, 2009 owing to a Rules Committee policy from 1974 that states that stimulus bills need at least 250 Representatives or 60% of the total membership of the House (whichever is smaller) to pass. As of the 2008 House elections, the Democrats had 257 House members and the Republicans had 178 House members. 7 Democratic House members (all of whom came from districts that John McCain had carried in the 2008 presidential election) joined 152 Republican House members (18 of whom came from districts that Barack Obama had carried in the 2008 presidential election) in voting against the 2009 stimulus bill; which vote had been scheduled for 4:13 P.M. on January 25, 2009 by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi in consultation with then-minority leader John Boehner. Under these conditions, the stimulus bill would have gone down to defeat if Gillibrand had resigned her House seat prior to the date of her appointment to the Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.6.222.14 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
No, Wicker and Scott were not the same thing. Gillibrand was appointed on January 23, but her term didn't begin until she resigned from the House three days later. That makes her unusual for an appointed senator. Wicker[10][11] and Scott[12][13] each resigned on (and with effect from) the same day they were appointed, making them like any other appointed senator: their terms began the day they were appointed. In Gillibrand's case, the note is necessary to explain a discrepancy between the date her appointment was issued and the date it took effect. Since there is no discrepancy in dates for Wicker and Scott, no such explanation is necessary. -Rrius (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deb Fischer

I think we should stick a note next to Deb Fischer of Nebraska indicating that she will become the most junior senior senator when the next Congress convenes in January 2015 unless one or more of Jon Tester, Bob Menendez, Johnny Isakson, Chuck Grassley, and/or Elizabeth Warren decide to resign for whatever reason between now and the end of the current Congress (this is assuming that Max Baucus goes down to defeat in a primary battle - otherwise scratch Tester from the list I just provided). Also, it appears Jeff Sessions of Alabama will become the most senior junior senator when the next Congress convenes in January 2015, though I haven't checked the current rankings to see if there's anyone above him whose colleague started earlier.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why bother? That is years away. And as you state, it's nowhere near certain. Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a sandbox set up to make such changes in anticipation of 2015. - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case, this should be discussed on the sandbox's talk page to avoid confusion. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Sen. Boxer will be the most senior junior senator in the next Congress (assuming she and Feinstein are still there). Mahrabu (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Split

Kentyd and Natg 19, would you two mind discussing the split here instead of continuing to undo each other? For what it's worth, I support a split— a reader who wants to understand Senate seniority rules doesn't necessarily also need the huge current seniority list, and vice versa. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion place. I did the split for the reason that Orange Suede Sofa said. I also felt that the article was getting too large, and it necessitated a split per WP:SPLIT. Natg 19 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Upon taking a second look, maybe a split isn't needed. WP:SPLIT gives a guideline of 50-60Kb of readable prose per page, and this page only has about 5Kb of readable prose and under 20Kb of table. And the size the table is unlikely to grow in the near future. Maybe it's best to leave it be unless there's further input from other editors. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate/Archives/1&oldid=1136234097"