Talk:113th United States Congress/Archive 1

Archive 1

numbers by senators

what do the numbers by the senator's names mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senator121 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Classes. I've made a note of it.—GoldRingChip 13:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

House Republican leadership

Has the House Republicans chosen their leaders, yet? I don't believe so. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. They elected the leaders on Wednesday. -Rrius (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Three congressmen have resigned or will resign before the start of the new Congress

Should the numbers reflect that at the start of the new congress, there will be three open seats? If we include this, the number is 198 Democrats and 234 Republicans.

California 18th, Dennis Cardoza (D); Resigned August 15, 2012 due to personal reasons. Illionis 2nd, Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D); Resigned November 21, 2012 due to personal reasons. California 51st Bob Filner (D); Will resign December 3, 2012 to become Mayor of San Diego.

user:mnw2000

As best I can tell, only Jackson's is applicable. Neither Cardoza nor Filner appears to have been elected to the 113th Congress, so they aren't relevant here (though they are at 112th, where I think Cardoza is already reflected). This happened in the 111th Congress (oddly enough it was Illinois) with Rahm Emanuel. Right now, it shows the winner of the special election with "from [date]". The best thing to do may be to list it as "Vacant, from January 3, 2013" and then mimic what we did four years ago. The numbers should also reflect the vacancy in the party summary table. -Rrius (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Illinois being Illinois, the letter actually creates a muddle. The operative bit of his letter says, "I hereby resign as a member of the United States House of Representatives, effective today." I think we can be clear about the fact that the letter operates to make him a former member with respect to the 112th Congress. But with respect to the 113th, he hasn't actually resigned anything. It may be that he is awaiting certification of the election or something, but it is something thing to consider. I should think we can, for the time being act on the sources saying he has resigned for good, but keep an eye out for official proof (which may not come until opening day, the earliest we may see a resignation letter with respect to the new term). -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a distinction between his resignation as a member of the 112th and as a member-elect of the 113th.JTRH (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There most certainly is. In fact, when Emanuel resigned, he resigned as a representative effective January 2, 2009, and declared he would not take his seat in the 111th Congress. Each term is a separate thing and must be dealt with, whether in the same document or not. He may have sent a letter to the governor saying both, but we don't know that. The fact is that yesterday Jackson had all the rights and responsibilities with respect to being a representative from Illinois. On Sunday December 2, when the Illinois Board of Elections proclaims the results, he will be entitled to a certificate of election (pursuant to the US Code) and to take his seat at the opening of the 113th Congress. To create a vacancy, he has to specifically disclaim that right. -Rrius (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, though I think his letter can also be read to be an all-encompassing renunciation of the seat both before and after January 3. I know the timing of the special election is governed by state law, but are the terms of a representative's resignation/declining to serve governed by state or federal law, given that it's a state-run election for a federal office? JTRH (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping no one would ask that since I couldn't remember the details, but fortunately I was able to follow an old research trail. These days, the letter of resignation submitted to the Speaker is basically for information and does not itself bring about the resignation. Here is the practice as described in House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House (2003), quoted in a 2008 Duke Law Review article called "Leaving the House: The Constitutional Status of Resignation from the House of Representatives": "[the] Member properly submits his resignation to an official designated by State law and simply informs the House of his doing so, the latter communication being satisfactory evidence of the resignation." Here that would be a letter to the governor; Rahm Emanuel's letter to the Speaker in 2009 attached a copy of his letter to the Governor resigning his seat and declaring he would not take his seat in the 111th Congress. -Rrius (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Just looked up the Gingrich precedent in the CR. He didn't resign from the 105th, but notified the Governor of Georgia (pursuant to the relevant state statute) between the election and the beginning of the 106th that he wouldn't take the seat to which he had been elected for the next Congress. The House classifies that as a "resignation." JTRH (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So there we are. Speaking of resignation watches, has anyone heard any representatives mentioned as possible Cabinet (or sub-Cabinet) replacements? Senator Kerry has been mentioned, and I've heard Reed's name mentioned as well, but this president has appointed a few reps in his administration (More than I remember from other recent presidents at least). -Rrius (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Quinn has received the resignation (whether in writing, orally, or by word of mouth) and yesterday tweeted he will announce the election dates within five days. So no need for a watch, but we have all learned something interesting (at least we can pretend it is interesting) about resignations. -Rrius (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I just read the California Secretary of State's election results page. Due to redistricting, Anna Eshoo now represents the 18th. There appears to have been someone elected from every district in CA, so there may not be a vacancy at the beginning of the 113th resulting from Cardoza's resignation. Filner was not a candidate for re-election, and there is a member-elect from the 51st. So Illinois 2 may actually be the only vacant seat at the beginning of the 113th. JTRH (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And here's another question, prompted by the "Changes in Membership" table that GoldRingChip has already created: If Jackson is never a member of the 113th, does his resignation constitute a change in membership for the 113th? Certainly the election of his successor will, but is it a "change" until that happens? JTRH (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He was a member-elect, and typically such resignations are read on opening day. The point being that there is a strong enough connection that it makes sense to list him. As you say, the line item would be there anyway, but marked as "Vacant", presumably, so I don't see why we wouldn't provide the name and party of the predecessor. After all, the point is to provide information, not to conform with absolute logical precision to the sub-heading above the table. -Rrius (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. JTRH (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Pierluisi's party

Whatever his Commonwealth affiliation is, he is a Democrat in Congress. See the Clerk's membership list. -Rrius (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

And the better analogy is to Minnesota Democrats, who are on the ballot as DFL, but are listed as Ds. -Rrius (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Tentative or certain?

Between the November 2012 election, and the beginning of this Congress in January 2013, there are some certainties and some unknowns. Between those poles are the likelihoods.

Among these, are:

• the likelihood of Boehner being re-elected Speaker — there's no reason to expect his majority party would vote otherwise, but his election doesn't actually happen until the Congress convenes. And is Inouye need to be re-elected as Senate PPT, or is that continuous?
• the likelihood of moving the January 6 date of counting the electoral college vote; the likelihood of the 1st session beginning January 3; the liklihood of the 2014 elections being held on November 4, 2014 — all of these dates could be changed by Congress, and some date changes are more likely than others.
• the likelihood of Biden being re-elected VPOTUS, and therefore remaining President of the Senate after January 20. Sure, the electoral college hasn't voted yet, but it's very likely he'll win.

Should we list as "tentative" or "likely" or just leave off any qualifier? When are we being overly fussy and when are we helping readers who want to learn more about this subject?—GoldRingChip 01:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The PPT remains in office until he or she resigns from that office, ceases to be a senator, or a successor is chosen. So Inouye is in less doubt than Biden, since the EC hasn't met yet. As for Boehner, it might make sense to add "(to be elected Jan. X)" once we know the date, but "to be determined" is beyond overboard. Finally, the argument about the dates is fatuous. Two points. The 20th Amendment specifies that Congress will convene on January 3 unless Congress by law sets another date. So the very provision that sets the date makes it tentative. But here is the other point: When was the last time Congress changed the date for holding elections? Has it ever? When was the last time Congress changed the first date of a session? Well, look at 112th United States Congress. Okay, okay, but when was the last time before that? Well, actually, both sessions of the 111th United States Congress were changed. Speaking of that Congress, what date was electoral vote counted? Actually, it was January 8th, not the 6th. As a matter of fact, four of the last seven electoral vote counts have taken place on a date other than January 6 (1985, 1989, 1997, and 2009). What's more, the 6th falls on a Sunday this year, making a near certainty that date, at least, will change. -Rrius (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

(1) The Congress Constitutionally begins at noon on January 3 even if they choose to convene on a different day, as they frequently do. We don't know yet when that day will be. (2) We have no idea yet when the electoral votes will be counted. There shouldn't even be a "tenative" [sic] date given until it's known. (3) The whole "TBD (but if retained from previous Congress...)" section on the leadership looks incredibly cluttered. We don't know yet whether any of the current leaders will face challenges within their party caucuses. It's unlikely but theoretically possible. As far as I'm concerned, with the exception of the continuing Constitutional officers, Biden and Inouye, there is no reason for any of it to be there at all until the leadership elections are actually held. Even there, given the extremely unlikely but theoretically possible event that the Electoral College could choose someone else as VP or that Inouye could die before January 3, we don't really know for a fact yet that Biden will be President of the Senate again or that Inouye will be PPT on January 3. Can't the whole section just wait a while? Otherwise, it's uninformed crystal-balling. JTRH (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm taking the plunge! (See WP:BB?) I've removed all the "tentative" and "Maybe-continued-from-last-Congress" stuff and just assumed it as fact. Shame on me, yes; but it's all sort of speculative crystal ball gazing any way. At least it's reliably so. So… if the facts change on the ground, then change the article. Sorry for all the equivocating. —GoldRingChip 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

We should wait until the full House of Representatives elect their Speaker, in January 2013. Even though the result is a foregone conclusion. GoodDay (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a foregone conclusion, saying "presumptive" is more than enough to cover the infinitesimal doubt. -Rrius (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As soon as the Republican Conference renominates Boehner, then he's officially the "Speaker-designate" of the 113th Congress from then until the formal election on the first day of the session, and it is appropriate to use that title. Which doesn't change his current title as the incumbent Speaker, in the same way that Obama is not currently referred to as "President-elect." JTRH (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please define TBD on this page. I guess it means To Be Determined. 406reader216.47.52.23 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. -Rrius (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Question of Readiness

Would it be appropriate to start information on what senators will be in the Senate already or should we wait until the election begins in a few months? I am inclined to begin now, would like input so I don't waste my time and have (more) constructive work deleted immediately. I think it would be useful. Stidmatt (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wait until the elections are done. In the 112th, we inserted them in November 2010.—GoldRingChip 20:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind. Added the continuing Senators today.—GoldRingChip 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Massive Reconstruction of Congressional district articles

As the boundaries for all congressional districts have changed, all 435 congressional district articles will need to undergo massive re-editing to reflect the new boundaries, data, voting in the 2012 elections, new congresspersons, etc. Some new districts have been created, as well as some districts becoming inactive, so those articles will need to be edited as a result to reflect the changes. Also, the articles will need to be updated with maps of the new boundaries. Is someone on Wikipedia preparing a big changeover that will happen on the day the 113th Congress takes office or will this be something that will gradually happen over the period of the next few weeks? Please answer, Thank you! Mailman903 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Many editors have been working on these articles for months. But nothing big is going to happen on Wikipedia on January 3, 2013, at least as far as redistricting. There's only so much that can been done by volunteers. You're welcome to make changes, too, as you would like them to happen. Remember, however, to retain old information about the districts and don't just toss it out when you add. Be bold!—GoldRingChip 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim DeMint

Could someone edit this to reflect Sen. Jim DeMint's plans to leave before the 113th Congress commences? I attempted to do this but it got reverted. Granted my formatting was probably improper. Thanks!50.136.74.20 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done.—GoldRingChip 19:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Inouye/Scott

I guess now we should include Congressman Tim Scott as South Carolina's Class 3 Senator. Also, we should probably update Hawaii's Class 3 Senate seat as being TBD in light of Sen. Inouye's death. Should probably remove him as Pro-Tem too. 50.136.74.20 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done. We need to wait until we're sure of the date of the DeMint/Scott transition.—GoldRingChip 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like Tim Scott will take office on the first day of the new term. If that is true, then it would not mean a "change in membership" from the beginning of the term (as with all other new members). As for Sen. Inoyue's appointed successor, he or she could take office as soon as he or she is appointed and sworn in. In that case, there would be no "change in membership" for the 113th Congress. We will have to wait and see, but it is possible that we will remove both names from "changes in membership" as there will be someone in office at the start of the new congress. user:mnw2000 14:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Sen. Inoyue's successor has taken office in 112th Congress, so that item has been removed from the "Changes in Membership" section for the 113th Congress. user:mnw2000 14:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

New Incoming Members Section

A new section that would list the new members to each house would be a interesting new section. Each two years, the new members, referred to as freshmen, are schooled in the ways of Congress and introduced as a group. A section that lists them with there previous positions would be quite informative. user:mnw2000 14:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Section or article on Speaker election

There has obviously been a lot of media speculation on whether Boehner would be opposed by Republicans for speaker. While no one was formally nominated, as the vote unfolds a handful of Republicans have voted for others to be speaker. Should a results table be added and a summary to a section on this subject? - Nbpolitico (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I created, and other members contributed to, an article on this and it was merged into this page by User:GoldRingChip. Two days later, the content was removed by User:Rrius. It strikes me as rather strange that the election of the presiding officer of a body, particularly one that received as much media attention as this one, would merit no mention in this article. Rather than simply restore the data and risk an edit war, I thought it might be worthwhile to discuss the merits of its inclusion and where and how it might be included. I will post a note on the above users talk pages, as well as those who contributed to the short-lived election article to facilitate discussion. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a separate article might have been a bit much based on the fact there is no other such article (and previous elections in the 19th century have been much more divisive), but I would support reverting to the status quo before Rrius removed the content. It should have some mention at least. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• The separate article was unnecessary, so I condensed it to a short 3-sentence summary. I think even that was a little long, but that was the best I could do. I think it should be included, but not prominent.—GoldRingChip 14:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The opening assumption is just flat out wrong. The election of a speaker is not something we normally point out. What was added is too much by far. I think there should be nothing since the expected result occurred. Short of that, we need no more than one sentence. We certainly don't need a list of all the votes and a bunch of speculation about why it might have been closer than it should have been. -Rrius (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And to answer the question that may be forming in your head now, the place where this information belongs is Boehner's article, not an article about this Congress. There were all sorts of machinations and close votes surrounding the Affordable Care Act in the 110th Congress, but go check out just how much space we dedicated to all that. Incidentally, I didn't get to see what the separate article said, but I'm not clear on why it was deleted. Articles for speaker elections in other countries exist, so I don't know why we couldn't have one for 2013. -Rrius (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link to what the speaker election article looked like. In terms of the Affordable Care Act, I assume/hope that there is information on the votes to bring it into law in its article, which is where it belongs. The election to the leadership of the 113th Congress belongs in the article about the 113th Congress, or in another article linked from it in my opinion. The fact that the election totals for previous speaker elections aren't included in the articles of those congresses is, in my view, a failing on their part rather than a justification for its omission here. I agree that the election result probably should be in the Boehner article as well (and I will add it now). However, it still warrants being mentioned or linked in someway to this article. Without it, readers are left wanting for information. - Nbpolitico (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it deserves a mention and maybe a brief vote count (say, 220 for Boehner, 192 for Pelosi, and 20 for others) in the Congress article, but perhaps not as long as it was before Rrius removed it. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a shorter version of it. If someone wants to shorten it some more, please do. Ratemonth (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Helpful Links

I'm still rather new to editing and don't know how to enter External Links, but here are 2 that I think readers would find helpful: List of House Resolutions for the 113th Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/L?c113:./list/c113hr.lst:1 List of House Roll Call Votes: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp

Could someone who knows how add these? Many thanks. History Lunatic (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

 Done - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous senator

Should the previous Senator be listed below the current Senator at the same indentation as the other current Senator?

• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)
• 2. Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013
  • John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013

instead of the current form of

• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)
• 2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013
  • Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013

user:mnw2000 22:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We usually list things in chronological order, so your second example:

• 2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013
  • Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013

would be correct. —GoldRingChip 01:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Senators listed by seniority

We usually list Senators by Seniority, but note (by number) their class. That sometimes leads to reversed-looking lists where the lower class has the lower seniority.

Such as in Alabama:

• 3. Richard Shelby (R)
• 2. Jeff Sessions (R)

But what do we do when there's a mid-Congress change in which the Senior Senator resigns/dies and is replaced?

Such as in Massachusetts:

…which used to be :

• 2. John Kerry (D)
• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)

… but is now:

• 1. Elizabeth Warren (D)
• 2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013
  • Mo Cowan (D), from February 1, 2013

It makes Kerry look junior to Warren. Should we remove the listing-by-seniority altogether? I'm inclined to leave it this way, but would like others' opinions.—GoldRingChip 01:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I once again renew the suggestion that these lists be split out. We could use tables rather than the pure text-based lists we have now. They could also take a page from List of senators in the 41st Parliament of Canada, specifically the last two columns, which note whether the person was there at the beginning and at the end of the Parliament. This is an extremely data-heavy article, and keeping all this information in it when presenting it is so difficult just doesn't make sense. -Rrius (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest:

2. John Kerry (D), until February 1, 2013

1. Elizabeth Warren (D)

2. William (or Mo) Cowan, from February 1, 2013.

Note, however, that the Senate was not in session yesterday and Cowan apparently has not taken the oath. So he's not actually a Senator yet even if his appointment was dated yesterday. Technically, the seat is vacant until he takes the oath. 71.75.58.69 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An oath does not a Senator make. He became a Senator on February 1, 2013, when the vacancy happened (i.e. Kerry's resignation)—GoldRingChip 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely incorrect. 71.75.58.69 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)