If the Senate is tied with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, then how is it decided who the majority/minority leader will be?
in the case of a tie, the vice-president casts the deciding vote. Since it’ll be Cheny, the GOP gets the majority status
Senate tradition dictates that the party of the vice-president is in the majority. So, from January 3 to January 19, the Democrats will be in the majority. Go over to Tom Daschle then and congratulate him on finally making it to Majority Leader.
After January 20, the GOP takes over and Trent Lott starts setting the agenda again.
I used the word “tradition” because I don’t believe that any of this is written down in any of the Senate’s standing rules. The Senate operates a lot on tradition and precedent, much more than the House.
The President of the Senate (who is also the Vice President of the United States) breaks any tie. From early Jan. until the inauguration, the President of the Senate will be Al Gore. After the inauguration, it will be Dick Cheney.
The Senate can vote to reogranize at any time, so if Gore casts the tie-breaking vote to make Tom Daschle Majority Leader, it will quickly be undone after the inauguration.
I could be wrong, but don’t the new House and Senate get sworn in in January? So for now we’re still running with the same one we’ve had for the last two years.
The new Senate will be sworn in on Jan. 3. From then until Jan. 20 (Bush/Cheney inauguration) the Senate will be controlled by the Democrats; 51-50 when you include Gore’s tiebreaking vote.
Origato, for a change, got it right.
I’ll just add that Daschle and co. have no plans to push anything through before the 20th that the Republicans will want to undo, so it’s going to be gridlock now, gridlock then, and then even more gridlock after the 20th.
Just exactly when did I get it wrong?
Oh! Oh! I know one! It actually is written down somewhere! When Thomas Jefferson was the VP, he wrote the rules by which the Senate is run. It was on Jeopardy! last night.
Sorry, can’t remember the actual title…
I think I heard one case where the senate was 50-50. IIRC, the Speaker alternated between the parties by agreement of the Members. Did I really hear this?
Nope. There was going to be a 50-50 Senate in the 1880s, I believe, but then someone switched parties.
The 47th Congress (1881-83) had a Senate evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (37 each) but there were two more senators who were of neither party who might have broken any tie. I don’t know the details of who had power. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate was not chosen for a two-year stint back then, but was chosen day by day.
The 72d Congress (1931-33) had a closely divided House. The Republicans won more seats in the 1930 election, but two of them died, so the Democrats were able to take control.
What gives the Vice President the tiebreaking vote is not tradition or rules, but the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 3 provides:
Here is the full story behind the 1881 senate deadlock. It’s even more fascinating than I had imagined.
One of the two independents had pledged to vote with the Democrats. The other independent (William Mahone) was from a breakaway faction of the Democratic party, but he voted with the Republicans. Vice President Chester Arthur broke the tie. But then two idiot Republican senators from New York resigned as a political protest, expecting to be reappointed by the New York legislature immediately. But they were not, which gave the Democrats the lead. Later President Garfield died, leaving the Vice Presidency of the U.S. (and hence the Presidency of the Senate) vacant. The compromise that was this: The other independent (David Davis, a former Supremem Court Justice) became President Pro Tempore, the Republicans to controlled the committees, and for Democrats controlled the offices of the Sergeant at arms and Secretary of the Senate.
The last paragraph of the link discusses the Senate of the 83d Congress, which was tied for part of 1954.
Or is the Senate going to be 50 Republicans and 49 Democrats until after Jan, 20? If Hillary is deemed to hold an office as the First Lady, she can’t become a Senator until after Bill stops being President. (see Constitution, Art. I, Sect, 6, cl.2). Therefore, the Republicans never lose their majority in the Senate.
Is “First Lady” really an “Office under the United States”? I could be wrong, but I didn’t think so…
The First Lady doesn’t draw a salary, so I don’t think it would be considered a Federal office. The definition of what is a Federal office has been fought over in the Supreme Court frequently.
If the Senate chooses to seat her on January 3, the issue would be decided. If the Republicans tried to keep her from taking off at that time, there would be quite a fight from the Democrats and President Bush would be starting out in some very hot water.
Here.
Recent news reports have Daschle (or his aides) using the title “Senate Democractic Leader”, not Senate Minoority Leader. Their reasoning - the Senate has 50 members of both parties, consquently there is no Minority or Majority.
If on a vote the Senate is tied 50-50 (or 49-49 or 41-41), the Vice President can vote to break the tie, but that doesn’t make the Democrats the minority. Cheney could certainly vote with the Democrats on an issue if that’s what the President wants.
Than please leave it there. Thanks.