Jump to content

Talk:116th United States Congress

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClumsyOwlet (talk | contribs) at 04:38, 5 March 2024 (anchor fixed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Too Early?

Am I the only one who think that it is a little to early to be showing the article's content? I created it purely for convenience and then hid it because the article was basically a list of house and senate leadership positions, all with TBD after them. The only positions that are determined are President of the senate, since Mike Pence is not appointed by the congress and has already been elected. We should probably wait until closer to the 2018 mid-term elections to start filling in members and the like. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with its being an article, now that the 115th United States Congress is in session. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes obviously you have no problem with it. I wanted to see what the general community felt about it. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In previous cases, we've kept one future Congress article. You're right that it shouldn't be a list of TBDs, so I removed them.—GoldRingChip 12:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding presumptive Senators and Reps.

Senators not up for election in 2018 should be added, as should Jenniffer González (House delegate from Puerto Rico, who is elected to a four-year term). MB298 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wait a little (beginning-mid 2018) because retirements and resignations are not so out of the ordinary. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker & President pro temp.

It doesn't do any harm to put – or — in place, so we can see Speaker & President pro Tempore in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next majorities

  • The elections of November 2018 will decide control of both houses.
  • Democratic leadership

Minority Leader:

  • Republican leadership

Majority Leader:

How does it fit together? --2A02:908:C30:3680:19E:28D8:822C:24D6 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Races yet to be called in the House

This article says there's 9 House races not called. Yet at United States House of Representatives elections, 2018, it says 11 House races not called. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

House compliment of 115th US Congress at time of expiration, January 3, 2019

We need to get things straightened out here, concerning the number of members in the House when the 115th US Congress expires at Noon EST on January 3, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: What is this about number of House members? Is it still 435 voting members (counting also any vacant seats)? You are writing about the Congress that ended just ahead of this one. I just inserted note that Pennsylvania's US House districts were revised again in time for 2018 election, having learned of this in the news because I myself live near Pennsylvania and often read news from Philadelphia. If there is any other revision like this out there (i.e., not directly resulting from the decennial census), please notify us at the wikipedia end. The Pennsylvania seats should, in the normal course of things, be reapportioned in time for the general election of 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlm0404 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No image in the facebook preview

When the link to this page is placed on a facebook post, a preview pops up with a blank image. I don't know how to fix this. So if someone would do this (and explain what they fixed), that would be great. Mathcadd (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's not the preview when you make a *new* post that is the problem, it is the preview when you use the link in a comment. Mathcadd (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Election of president pro tempore and president pro tempore emeritus

The president pro tempore and president pro tempore emeritus are not elected in the same way as the Speaker. Those are continuing offices which don't expire at the beginning of a new Congress. When there is a vacancy in PPT, as will happen when Hatch retires, the Majority Leader submits a resolution electing the new PPT, which is adopted by unanimous consent. The vacancy is caused by Hatch's retirement, not by the expiration of the previous Congress (unlike the Speaker, who is elected every two years even if the incumbent continues in the office.) There will not be an election in which Grassley and Leahy run against each other. This means that Leahy will not theoretically give up being PPT Emeritus. He will continue in that office. JTRH (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing a custom that has been in place since 1949, not a rule or law. While it's highly likely that Leahy will be PPT, he has not been elected to this position yet, so we shouldn't list him as such yet. Otherwise, we are violating WP:CRYSTALBALL, NOTNEWS, and SYNTH, no? Levivich (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it'll be Leahy, as the Democrats will still be in the minority. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grassley will most likely be elected PPT in January 2019, since the Republicans (who already nominated him) will have the majority. As for Leahy? he'll likely be the Democratic nominee & could theoretically be elected PPT (though highly unlikely) by the Senate. But, we wait until then. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, there is no "election" for PPT as there is for Speaker. Grassley and Leahy do not formally run against each other for the position. JTRH (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is an election for PPT, like there is for Speaker. That's why the Republicans have nominated Grassley & the Democrats will nominate Leahy for PPT. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, but that’s incorrect. The PPT is elected by unanimous consent resolution whenever a new one is chosen. I can find a link to the Congressional Record for Hatch’s election if you want. JTRH (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. And there was no such resolution in the current Congress because Hatch was continuing in the office. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/01/06/senate-section/article/S6-5
JTRH (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here’s the resolution designating Leahy as PPTE. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/1/6/senate-section/article/S6-8 JTRH (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: As for Leahy as PPTE? that's the title he currently has in the Senate of the 115th US Congress. If he's not elected PPT in January 2019, then he'll continue as PPTE (since he'd still be a former PPT) in the 116th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Leahy is the incumbent PPTE, and will remain in that position until the Senate changes it. The only changes since the position was created have been when the incumbent left office, or the majority changed and the PPTE was once again PPT. JTRH (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we wait until the PPT election is held in January 2019. Though highly unlikely, the Senate could elect Leahy as PPT. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant above that it's highly likely that Grassley will be PPT and Leahy PPTE, but it's too soon to say so. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grassley is highly likely. Leahy, as the incumbent PPTE, is definite unless the Senate takes historically unprecedented action to change it. That's why I left PPT as TBD when I reverted PPTE from TBD to Leahy. JTRH (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically unprecedented," but that precedent has only been around since 2001 (when PPTE was created). It's not like 250 years of tradition. That said, Leahy is the current PPTE, and will continue to be PPTE until/unless a new resolution is passed (right?). So, I can see the argument for saying that Leahy "is" the PPTE for both the 115th and the 116th. Or, at least, the "presumptive" PPTE. (Similarly, I could see saying Grassley is the "presumptive" PPT.) From what I've seen, all RS's report that Grassley is going to be the next PPT; I haven't seen anything written about PPTE yet (probably won't, as nobody cares). Levivich (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know with 100% certainty that Leahy will continue as PPTE into the 116th US Congress. Though highly unlikely, the Senate could elect him as PPT. No where in the Constitution, does it say the Senate must choose the oldest member of the majority party. Furthermore, PPTE is only an 'honorary' title & not an office itself. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was an official Office of the President Pro Tempore Emeritus, but it was established only for certain Congresses and not others (108th–110th and 114th per Google). In twenty years, they established a new position, made it official (with an expense account), then made it unofficial, then reversed again, etc... I guess that reinforces the notion that we really can't be certain. Now where are my flip-flops? Levivich (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs: uncalled races, open seats, "seats before"/"seat change"

Please comment:

  • RfC: When has a candidate won an election? RfC closed. Result: "There is a clear consensus for option 3: an article should state that a candidate has won an election when the election is called by reliable sources (All sources? Most sources? A particular source?) for United States elections. Some editors expressed support for requiring that more than one source call the election. There is no consensus owing to the lack of discussion by a number of the RfC participants on this, so there is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss this further."
  • RfC: Definition of "open election" or "open seat"
  • RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"

Thank you. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs to be updated

The Senate Map that displays current members needs to be updated now that Florida and Mississippi have both been called I would do it myself but I fear that the map I made may potentially violate a copyright rule I pulled the current map and made both states red but I am unsure if I should post the image yet and I do not wish to risk putting myself in a bad place. If somebody can do it before the new Congress starts that would be good.Wollers14 (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

The section has no citations at all, so right now seems to be straight up original research.

But beyond that, someone keeps editing it to include essentially two categories when it comes to gender and sexuality: LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+. Defining the entire population in terms of whether they do or do not belong or don't belong to LGBTQ seems arbitrary if not down right agenda driven. It's akin to describing everyone on the planet as either "left handed" and "non-left handed" Zaqwert (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional Research Service publishes an article on the demographics of each new Congress, but that won't be out for a while. Until then, there is probably a source for all of this, but it's very hard to document. JTRH (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senator List

Should senators be listed by class # or by which one is senior/junior? Pennwood711 (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Disputed" link leads to district article and not the 2018 election article

The "Disputed" link under the House Membership composition leads to the North Carolina's 9th congressional district article instead of the 2018 North Carolina's 9th congressional district election. Since the composition is supposed to represent a state in time, it might make more sense to link to the election article instead, and it would also make more sense for anyone interested in understanding why it's disputed. The "TBD" link for that district further down in the parent article also leads to the 2018 election article. However, the "Disputed" link seems to be part of a template such that it seems a bit non-trivial to adjust if the change is merited. Either way, figured I'd mention it if anyone else agreed while also understands how to adjust it. - Sayden (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox officeholder

What is the accepted way to use "Infobox officeholder' for members when they change districts with out leaving congress? One box for each district or one box showing all districts represented? I have seen it both ways EX:Maxine Waters and Ken Calvert both of California. Tomrtn (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time again.

Prepare for the avalanche of uninformed edits to this article, which completely disregard the fact the 116th US Congress takes effect at NOON EST on January 3, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Scott

Is Scott's seat considered vacant until he takes oath? Pennwood711 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he appoints someone to serve for five days, it’s vacant.JTRH (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of membership.

Similar to the Rick Scott vacancy row in the Senate subsection, shouldn't there be a row depicting the vacancy of the 9th North Carolina district in the house of representatives subsection of changes of membership? PrithviMS (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slideshow galleries

I added slideshow galleries to the party summaries.

  • Why: To include all the images of the party summaries as each house has had membership changes. It's temping just to change the image on the Commons, but this way we preserve the look of the images as membership changes.
  • Problem: I'm not happy with how they look, however. There's far-too-much whitespace above and below the images. Can that be fixed?
  • Legends: I also removed the legends because they made it look even worse. Besides, the breakdown of the parties is evident from the adjacent chart.

So what do you fellow editors think? Is this fixible? Should it just be reverted to the old style? I welcome your opnions. —GoldRingChip 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders is still not a Democratic Senator

As he did in 2016, Sanders has affiliated with the Democratic Party as a presidential candidate. He has not joined the Democratic Party as a Senator. He was elected to the Senate from Vermont as an independent, and he remains an independent in the Senate, who votes with Democrats for organizational purposes but has not joined the party. I have no interest in an edit war, but calling him a Democratic Senator is factually incorrect until he takes an additional step to change that, and there's no reason to believe he's going to. JTRH (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to House rules

After Democrats took control of the House in the 116th Congress, they voted to change some rules from the previous session of Congress when Republicans were in control. Some of the changes appear below.

  • PAYGO: Democrats approved PAYGO, a “provision that requires legislation that would increase the deficit to be offset by spending cuts or revenue increases.”
  • Ethics: Democrats made changes to House ethics rules that required all House members to take ethics training, not just new members. The rules also required members to reimburse taxpayers for settlements that that result from a member’s discrimination of someone based on race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, among other things. Lawmakers were also prohibited from sitting on corporate boards.
  • Climate change committee: Democrats created a new climate change committee to address the issue. The committee was not given subpoena power or the ability to bring bills to the floor.

Miss Dai (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Keller and others term start

In this article, it says Fred Keller started his term May 21 (when he won the special election), but in his biography, it says he started June 3 (when the swearing-in ceremony took place). I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should establish with certainty which date it is, and update both his biography and related articles like this one to make sure they're consistent. Same thing goes for future members who will be elected to fill additional vacancies, like in North Carolina. ECTran71 (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation of changing House membership tool

We're missing the October 1, 2019 seat change. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added it in, but now we need 2 new images. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Past or present tense

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Past or present tense. —GoldRingChip 17:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the definite article

Do we really need to have "The" in the 'Major events' list? If so, don't we need "The" for all the major legislation, Employees and legislative agency directors, etc.? —GoldRingChip 19:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a full sentence, I don't it's good English without it: "[the] House of Representatives passed a procedural vote on the impeachment inquiry." HandsomeFella (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Sentence format. That makes sense. Thanks! —GoldRingChip 01:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Van Drew

According to the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, a December 19, 2019 vote recorded at 4:21 PM has Jeff Van Drew as continuing to be a member of the Democratic Party [1]. Banana Republic (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He ‘’announced’’ the party switch on December 14. That’s easily documented. There is no formal process a member has to go through to switch parties. The Clerk’s office is probably behind in updating their records, but the party switch has happened. JTRH (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He only ‘’announced’’ that he intends to switch parties. He certainly did not switch over prior to December 18, because it was important to vote against the impeachment as a Democrat (otherwise he would not have stood out). There is a formal process to switch parties, and that is to inform the clerk of the House that the switch took place. Banana Republic (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The clerk of the House maintains the official record of the list of members. As of this writing, the Clerk still maintains Van Drew in the list as a Democrat. Banana Republic (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the record hasn't been updated since dec 2 so its not proof of anything 148.77.10.25 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That page is not a newspaper — it does not get updated every day. It only gets updated when necessary. It would get updated if and when Van Drew lets the Clerk know to list him as a Republican. Banana Republic (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
if that was true why did it get updated on dec 2 nothing changed on that day. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put too much stock into that December 2 date. This page shows all the changes and when they occurred, and nothing has changed since November 4, so there is no reason for a change date of December 2. Banana Republic (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference used in the article to make the claim that Van Drew officially switched is basing the assertion on the photo-op Van Drew held with Trump. That photo-op is not an official switch (it's just a photo-op). If by January the clerk does not update the list, we should probably revert the article to say that Van Drew is still a Democrat. Banana Republic (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing with multiple media sources which state that he has switched. JTRH (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The media sources are only reporting that at the photo-op, Van Drew told Trump that he is switching. But until he tells this to the Clerk of the House, the promise he made to Trump is not even worth the paper that it's written on. Banana Republic (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are media sources identifying him as a Republican. And the fact that the Clerk’s office hasn’t updated their records during a holiday week doesn’t mean he hasn’t told them.JTRH (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The House Democratic Caucus has removed him from the membership list on their Website. JTRH (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Republicans have yet to add him to their list, and Van Drew has not yet formally issued a press release stating that he has made the switch (although in fairness, he no longer has staff to do that kind of work for him, if indeed he has decided to follow through on his statement to switch parties). Banana Republic (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Space Force in "Major legislation" section

We should mention the legislation that created the U.S. Space Force in the "Major legislation" section of this article. Creating the first new branch of the U.S. Armed Forces since 1947 is certainly a notable/major piece of legislation. I have not added it because I believe it was created through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, and I don't know if the branch's creation is under a more specific legislation name (similar to how the SECURE Act was inside a bigger piece of legislation). --1990'sguy (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Amash, Libertarian

With Amash running as a Libertarian and the party requiring membership to do so, should the article and associated House article to be updated? He's be the first Libertarian Party member in Congress, ever. Ref, LP chairman: https://twitter.com/nsarwark/status/1255310040942116869 Starks (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's not a Libertarian (yet) in Congress, and that's what matters here. —GoldRingChip 14:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • He gave an interview yesterday in which he said that he will be a Libertarian member of Congress. I would imagine that the Clerk's office is not set up to make an official change under the circumstances. Since it doesn't affect the balance of power between the two parties, it doesn't directly matter which caucus he's the only member of. JTRH (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GoldRingChip, imo that gallery isn't excessive. It illustrates the concept in a way no words can. —valereee (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interim redistricting

Please note what I just said above in "House compliment of 115th US Congress at time of expiration, January 3, 2019". Pennsylvania underwent a 2018 shift in its US House districts. Carlm0404 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, I found this comment about Maryland elsewhere on wikipedia: "After 1967, however, eight districts were drawn and the at-large district was eliminated." In other words, we had this change between 2 censuses: BEFORE -- Maryland was split into 7 districts, with the 8th seat being filled at large (i.e. statewide); AFTER -- Maryland was split into 8 districts (no more at-large). Carlm0404 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article not fully up to date

The party summary section has been updated to reflect the certification of the results of the Arizona special Senate election, but the members and changes in membership sections have not. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House membership chart

Could someone make a new chart, since Kwanza Hall has now been seated in Lewis's seat?

Sdrqaz (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This section states the majority for Senate and the Vice President as incorrect.

Hello,’

The sidebar of this article is reflecting the senate majority as Democratic and the Vice President as Kamala Harris. This is incorrect as the 116th Congress (2019-2021) was majority Republican in the senate, and the President Pro Tempore would be Chuck Grassley (check source please), and lastly the Vice President is Mike Pence. This change needs to be made to correctly reflect the U.S. Congressional & Political Makeup between 3 Jan 2019 to 2 Jan 2021.

Update: 8:40 AZ time, change has been made. Thank-you. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StayFactual2021 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@StayFactual2021: Not a problem. It's a product of editors confusing the 116th Congress and the 117th Congress. Thank you. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:116th_United_States_Congress&oldid=1211910221"