Seniority tiebreakers

[Astatine]

In terms of seniority, Sheldon Whitehouse and Jon Tester are ranked #28 and #29 respectively, as they both assumed office on 3 January 2007 and population of the respective states (RI and MT) is the effective tiebreaker to determine who is the more senior Senator.

As MT is set to overtake RI in terms of population according to estimates, would this elevate Tester to rank #28 (ahead of Whitehouse) when the census results get released?

[politicallefty]

I looked up the tiebreakers myself and it seems you're right. I'm not sure how it would work, but it would seem like Tester would jump over Whitehouse in that case. After all, the other tiebreakers (like being a former Senator or former House member) would have that individual jump ahead. I don't see how this would be any different.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

[politicallefty]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Really? I didn't see that anywhere. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's contrary to other seniority measures and tiebreakers.

[Del Tachi]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Really? I didn't see that anywhere. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's contrary to other seniority measures and tiebreakers.

No?  Being a former member of Congress doesn’t allow you to “leap frog” senators who came into office before you did.  If Obama went back to the Senate sometime later this year, he’d be more junior than all the new senators just inaugurated

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Really? I didn't see that anywhere. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's contrary to other seniority measures and tiebreakers.

No?  Being a former member of Congress doesn’t allow you to “leap frog” senators who came into office before you did.  If Obama went back to the Senate sometime later this year, he’d be more junior than all the new senators just inaugurated

Altho if he'd resumed his Senate seat on January 3, he'd have been the most senior of them.

[brucejoel99]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Is this even possible, since the 2020 Census wasn't formally completed by the time they were sworn-in on Jan. 3rd?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Is this even possible, since the 2020 Census wasn't formally completed by the time they were sworn-in on Jan. 3rd?

Depends on how they interpret the rule and how the rule is worded. However, the estimates for their States' populations would have to both be radically wrong with Alabama's population much higher and Tennessee's much lower than expected for it to go beyond the theoretical. I strongly doubt that the estimates would change enough for Tennessee to lose a House seat and Alabama to gain a House seat, even with Tennessee still having more people, let alone with Alabama having more. I brought it up mainly because of the new incoming Senators, those two are the only ones whose relative seniority depends upon the State populations tiebreaker.

Weirdly enough, Raffensperger might be able to influence whether Ossoff or Warnock will be Georgia's senior Senator. If he certifies them at the same time, Ossoff will have seniority based on the alphabetical tiebreaker, but if he certifies Warnock first and holds off on Ossoff for a day or more for some reason, such as a recount, then Warnock will be the senior Senator.

[jimrtex]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Is this even possible, since the 2020 Census wasn't formally completed by the time they were sworn-in on Jan. 3rd?

Depends on how they interpret the rule and how the rule is worded. However, the estimates for their States' populations would have to both be radically wrong with Alabama's population much higher and Tennessee's much lower than expected for it to go beyond the theoretical. I strongly doubt that the estimates would change enough for Tennessee to lose a House seat and Alabama to gain a House seat, even with Tennessee still having more people, let alone with Alabama having more. I brought it up mainly because of the new incoming Senators, those two are the only ones whose relative seniority depends upon the State populations tiebreaker.

Weirdly enough, Raffensperger might be able to influence whether Ossoff or Warnock will be Georgia's senior Senator. If he certifies them at the same time, Ossoff will have seniority based on the alphabetical tiebreaker, but if he certifies Warnock first and holds off on Ossoff for a day or more for some reason, such as a recount, then Warnock will be the senior Senator.

I couldn't find any formal definition of a rule.

The Senate Rules says that it is the sense of the Senate that committee rules should provide for subcommittee assignment by seniority, without defining seniority.

The Foreign Relations committee rules simply copy-pastes from the Senate Rules.

I did find a mention in a senate guide that the use of additional rules is of recent custom, and that before 1953 seniority was determined alphabetically.

I did come across this interesting list.

https://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/former_senators_state.htm

There are only 166 living former senators which is interesting given that there are only 100 living senators.

Three states have no former senators.

HI - since 2018 Daniel Akaka died at 93.
KY - since 2017 Jim Bunning died at 85
VT - since2014 Jim Jeffords died at 72

GA has 9 former senators, the most of any.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Is this even possible, since the 2020 Census wasn't formally completed by the time they were sworn-in on Jan. 3rd?

Depends on how they interpret the rule and how the rule is worded. However, the estimates for their States' populations would have to both be radically wrong with Alabama's population much higher and Tennessee's much lower than expected for it to go beyond the theoretical. I strongly doubt that the estimates would change enough for Tennessee to lose a House seat and Alabama to gain a House seat, even with Tennessee still having more people, let alone with Alabama having more. I brought it up mainly because of the new incoming Senators, those two are the only ones whose relative seniority depends upon the State populations tiebreaker.

Turns out Padilla ended up senior to Ossoff and Warnock because of the population tiebreaker. Georgia obviously isn't overtaking California any time soon, though.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The population tiebreaker is based on State population of the most recent census at the time the Senators took office. So Tester won't overtake Whitehouse, as the 2000 Census results haven't changed. If there's any overtaking, it'll be if Alabama unexpectedly passes Tennessee and they redo the tiebreaker between Tuberville and Haggerty once the 2020 Census results are finally released.

Is this even possible, since the 2020 Census wasn't formally completed by the time they were sworn-in on Jan. 3rd?

Depends on how they interpret the rule and how the rule is worded. However, the estimates for their States' populations would have to both be radically wrong with Alabama's population much higher and Tennessee's much lower than expected for it to go beyond the theoretical. I strongly doubt that the estimates would change enough for Tennessee to lose a House seat and Alabama to gain a House seat, even with Tennessee still having more people, let alone with Alabama having more. I brought it up mainly because of the new incoming Senators, those two are the only ones whose relative seniority depends upon the State populations tiebreaker.

Turns out Padilla ended up senior to Ossoff and Warnock because of the population tiebreaker. Georgia obviously isn't overtaking California any time soon, though.

There certainly are a lot more Democrats willing to admit they're from Georgia now.