Talk:Seniority in the United States House of Representatives

Abercrombie

Neil Abercrombie needs to be removed.

Members with same length of service

The article states that members with the same length of service are ranked alphabetically by last name. The official seniority list [[1]] lists members who took office on the same day alphabetically by last name, but it does not specify that (for example) Charles Rangel is senior to C.W. Bill Young. Can it be verified that these members are not considered equal (tied) in seniority? JTRH (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 members-elect

Someone's already added the two people who were elected to fill vacancies at the end of the 111th. I'm not going to revert it, because it'll be accurate in two days, but they won't actually be sworn in until Monday the 15th. At that point, though, the usual practice is that they'll be given seniority retroactive to the day after the election (the 3rd, not Election Day itself). Just a clarification of their status. JTRH (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rep.-Elect Tom Reed (R-NY 29) has been hospitalized and his swearing in postponed. The date depends on his health. JTRH (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark Critz & Charles Djou

The official House seniority list shows Critz with a seniority date of 5/18/10 and Djou with a seniority date of 5/22/10. However, it lists Djou first before Critz. Is there a reason that Djou actually ranks higher in seniority, or is this a mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.146.41 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea why the list does that, but Djou will be leaving office in January, so it's about to become a moot point. JTRH (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Senior member of delegation

Would it be appropriate in this article to note the senior members of delegations (of non at-large states), or not? It is a facet of their seniority. Guidelines? 75.203.153.66 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not something that gets them any extra recognition or power in the House. State delegations aren't organized like committees. JTRH (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Pallone & Duncan; Baca & Sires

At 41 & 42, respectively, (and it agrees with the official Congessional seniority list), I presume Pallone's credentials were accepted and he was sworn in before Duncan. A reference should be found and cited in a note. (Similar to 343/344 Reed & Stutzman, as well as 338/339 Garamendi & Owens, but their order is alphabetical, as are 142/143 Bono & Lee). Sires(263), again, matching Congessional list, looks like they never changed from his oath date to date of election. 75.202.240.223 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Same with Baca(165). 75.202.109.240 (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Rep. Sires' date changed on 112th pdf. Dru of Id (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this deserve to have it's own article?

I am not sure if this deserves to have it's own article given how the main page has all this information already. It could be merged into a list of current members of the House of Representatives which could include all sortable data. Stidmatt (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would invite people to look at this: User:JTRH/sandbox4, which is an excerpt which essentially combines the "current members" list and the "list of members of the [current] Congress" list. Aside from the fact that the two lists are overwhelmingly (but obviously not completely) redundant, a single list would provide more complete information. In the example I use, Giffords and Heller are listed, with the dates of their resignations given, and the seniority rankings they previously had in brackets. Hirono and Johnson, next on the list, have the seniority rankings they assumed after Giffords and Heller left office. Then, Amodei and Barber are also listed with their dates of election and the seniority rankings they had when they took office (I guessed at the numbers, and I could be wrong). The "112th Congress" list doesn't give seniority numbers for anyone (beginning with Kathy Hochul) who took office after the Congress began. That assumes that only 435 individuals ever have seniority rankings during a given Congress, which is incorrect. On the other hand, the "current members" list doesn't account for people who left after the Congress began. This information could easily be presented in one place. Thoughts? JTRH (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Jumping the gun, again

Members of Congress are not Members of Congress until they take the oath of office. Members who are elected in special elections are considered to have begun their terms on the day of the election, but they are still not Members until they have been sworn in. I had inserted a line above the list of last week's special election winners indicating that they would take their oaths of office when Congress reconvened on November 13 (even though their seniority dates would then be November 6). That notation was removed this morning, even though three of the four members were only sworn in moments ago as I write, and Mr. Payne of New Jersey has yet to take his oath. He is apparently not present. He is therefore not a Member of Congress and not 434th in seniority until he does so. Someone jumps the gun on this every time there's a special election. JTRH (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Vacant is not a member

Vacant is not a member, but shouldn't there be a notation of vacancies in order to account for all 435 seats? JTRH (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegates

Although delegates are not "members" in terms of floor voting rights (they do have full voting rights in caucuses and in committees and subcommittees), there should be some mention of them, a list of their own seniority and where would they appear, were they officially included in the seniority list. Committees and subcomittees do list them by seniority ij its membership lists and several of them have served as subcommittee chairs when they've been part of the majority. As the article and list now stand, they do not exist. Pr4ever (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by seniority → Seniority in the United States House of Representatives – Consistency with Seniority in the United States Senate, which is a briefer title. While the latter is a more fleshed out article about seniority in the Senate and this isn't, this article could potentially have more information. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Harej (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think it would be better if the concept and topic of seniority were separate articles from the list of members by seniority. So both these articles should be split into two. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Members who enter on special elections

The seniority for members who enter the House on special election is the date that they are sworn in, not the date of the election. The House's web site, which has not been updated since September 2016, shows a list of seniority of house members with seniority dates for Dan Donovan (politician), Trent Kelly, Darin LaHood, and Warren Davidson being the date that they were sworn in, not the date that they were elected. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The Clerk of the House is the authoritative source. Those members are credited with seniority from the day of their election (the day after in the Senate), but they are not on the membership rolls until they are actually sworn in. JTRH (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Table

Could someone fix the table (I would do it myself but usually I just end up making it worse)? There are a few cells outside of columns. MB298 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll second that the table doesn't sort right for all columns AmYisroelChai (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

fixed sorting problem AmYisroelChai (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Conyers resignation

John Conyers has resigned today, so he should be removed by someone better with Wiki formatting then me...

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-conyers-resigns-20171205-story.html

So is Don Young Dean now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpack40351 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, unfortunately, my table formatting skills aren't all that good either. :) Safiel (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I took conyers out and made young the dean out but i don't have the time or patience to change the rank list AmYisroelChai (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of United States Senators in the 115th Congress by seniority#Senators > 100?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of United States Senators in the 115th Congress by seniority#Senators > 100?. —GoldRingChip 20:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Mike Bost

Mike Bost is listed as #319 with a date of January 3, 2015 but he has been in congress since January 1995. He was the Rep from Illinois-12 but was re districted to Illinois-15, So what date should his seniority be? Tomrtn (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

He was a state representative until 2015. JTRH (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks my mistake Tomrtn (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sort by state.

Is there a better way to sort Reps by the state they represent?Pennwood711 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Leadership positions

Representative John Lewis (Senior Chief Deputy Whip) is the longest-serving member of the Democratic leadership (for some years ending in 2003 he was also the oldest member of the leadership but hasn't been since...cue the younger members' frustration with the generation gap).Should his leadership position be noted?--12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so. Not every bit of information is noteworthy, even if it's factually correct. —GoldRingChip 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • So only Speaker,Leaders,Whips,Caucus/Conference Chairs and Assistant Speaker count as mentionable leadership posts?-12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh! I thought you were suggesting we mention his longevity at the position, not the position itself. Being Senior Chief Deputy Whip is somewhat notable but there's, of course, got to be a line somewhere for WP:CSC. —GoldRingChip 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • PS— I'm glad you're this interested in an article about the U.S. Congress. Perhaps you should WP:REGISTER for a WP account? —GoldRingChip 17:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

May 12, 2020 Special Elections

Tiffany and Garcia did not become Members of the House on May 12th. Their elections are not certified, and they have not been sworn in. Even if House rules will retroactively list their service from May 12th, they are not Members of Congress today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlCanton (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This happens every time there's a special election. Someone lists the winner as a member of Congress the minute the polls close. JTRH (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried holding off for a while to no avail....there are some things I try to hold off still until they take the oath.... I don't add the seniority tag or the tag of current representative of the given state on the person's page until that happens.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is happening once again with the most recent special election in UT-02. AG202 (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Change to "Standards for seniority"

@Nkon21, P,TO 19104, and Sbb618: The "standards for seniority" section feels very confusing to read and has no citations attached to it. I propose changing it to "The table below is sorted by number of terms of service (in descending order by beginning of service) and then alphabetically by last name." This is in accordance to information available on the Office of the House Historian (https://history.house.gov/Institution/Seniority/Terms-of-Service/) and a PDF from the Office of the Clerk (https://clerk.house.gov/member_info/Terms_of_Service.pdf). If agreed upon, I'll carry out the edit.

Sdrqaz (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change carried out in the spirit of WP:BOLD and after waiting for extended period of time.

Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "Committee and leadership positions" column

The rightmost column on the page showing each member's committee chairmanships or leadership positions was removed in a recent edit. I disagree with this removal, but I don't want to start a giant string of reverts, so I'm putting my argument here.

I would argue to keep this column for a few reasons. It provides a useful snapshot of how many important positions in Congress are held by more senior members, and informs readers about them at a glance instead of having to go to multiple places. It's been a part of the page since it was created in 2009, and is still seen on every Wikipedia list of seniority for individual Congresses. And, for aesthetic purposes; there's a huge white gap running down the whole page without it. If you have strong feelings for or against this change, please comment below. Sbb618 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sbb618, I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter, but I agree. Although it is not a consideration for seniority, it is interesting information that is worthy of inclusion per the reasons above (though perhaps not for the aesthetic reasons). I would also argue that a similar edit made at Seniority in the United States Senate should be reverted for the same reasons. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit there was reverted and then reverted back.73.110.217.186 (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think that this page, and the Senate one, is poorer following the changes. While committee and leadership positions are not factors in seniority the topics are clearly linked as committee leadership is one of the primary reasons why seniority is important. Furthermore the change removes useful information and brings no obvious benefit. If we are only going to list factors that determine seniority we could just as easily get rid of the party and district columns as well Conservative Thinker (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• I was the editor who removed the column in this article (and in Seniority in the United States Senate).

  Although you are correct that the column does add some useful information, it's not clear how those positions are connected to seniority. To the casual reader, the connection is either implied that it's somehow crucial or surprising that it's somehow not. In some cases, committee leadership is based often on deal-making and constituent services, not seniority. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing! Rather, it's just not terribly useful here.

  Furthermore, there is a problem defining which positions are relevant for inclusion: Committee leaderships? Assistant committee leaders? Deans? Speaker? Assistant Speaker? Campaign committee chair? Campaign committee secretary? Whips? Assistant whips? Regional whips? An arbitrary standard could be written, but it would not hold up as somehow relevant to the purpose of this list.

  In conclusion: This is a nice long list and and the benefit of this column is not worth the cost. —GoldRingChip 15:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: While I understand the rationale behind your decision, I disagree with it. To the casual reader, the cause behind each representative's seniority should be abundantly clear based on the paragraph explaining how seniority is calculated and the seniority date already present in the table. I doubt that they would look at Rep. Pelosi's entry and conclude she is the most senior based on her speakership alone.

As for what positions are relevant for inclusion, I don't think anyone is suggesting positions like freshman class leadership representative should be included. I'm in favour of including all congressional committee chairs and ranking members. As for leadership positions, in the Senate the President pro tempore (perhaps the president pro tempore emeritus as well) and the top three positions of each caucus (Sens. McConnell, Thune, Barrasso, Schumer, Durbin, and Murray) should be included. In the House, the Speaker and Dean of the House should be included, as well as the top three positions of each caucus (Reps. Høyer, Clyburn, Luján, McCarthy, Scalise, and Cheney). I think that is a fair proposal, although I dislike omitting Rep. Jeffries. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That paragraph explains, correctly as you say, the method for calculating seniority. But the paragraph I excised was entirely unrelated to that calculation. In fact, again as you say, since Pelosi is obviously not senior by tenure, why include it at all other than to imply that one need not be senior-most to be Speaker? The next section (currently titled, Benefits of seniority) currently states "Party leadership in the House is not strictly associated with seniority." Therefore it seems clear that listing the leadership as a full detailed column might be unnecessary… other than to confirm that very proposition. —GoldRingChip 18:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's a fair proposal. But, the proposal — in itself — admits to the arbitrariness of its inclusion. —GoldRingChip 18:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that, even if there isn't a strict 1:1 correlation between "most seniority" and "highest posts", there is a general correlation between the two, especially within the Democratic Party, and that's important to show in a list like this devoted to seniority. Instead of just slightly describing the importance of having been in Congress for a long time, this is an opportunity to show it visually that I don't think should be passed up. Sbb618 (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that just because the leadership and committee assignments column is unrelated to seniority does not mean it is not valuable information worthy of inclusion in the page (that sounds contradictory, but stay with me). Information on what district a representative is from and what party to which they belong is included in the table, despite being unrelated to seniority (although I suppose you could make the argument that the safer the district, the more likely they are to accrue seniority). We include those pieces of information because they are important for identifying the representative. While of course committee assignments aren't as important for identifying representatives, I still think that they are worthy of inclusion. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That column was my number one reason for coming to this page because I wanted to see the relation between seniority and committee chairmanships, which heavily aligned with some exceptions. It's more of a Democrat thing but still I think it's worthy of inclusion especially with a passage that explains the relation. It's a nice cross-reference addition. Killuminator (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

If there's nothing else to add, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus for keeping the column in question both at this page and at the Senate page. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

The table is all messed up. Somebody please fix the formatting ASAP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.70.213 (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: "Previous service" column

I had broken out a separate column for the dates of members' previous service. Most of the entries were blank, since most members haven't served non-consecutively. Someone consolidated that into the seniority date column. Now the column doesn't sort properly by seniority date. Anyone with previous service is listed at the bottom, regardless of their seniority date. I'd like to go ahead and restore Previous Service as a separate column, but I wanted to open a discussion first. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No objections here, JTRH. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Lizzie Fletcher vs Lizzie Pannill Fletcher

Since Lizzie Fletcher's last name is Fletcher (Pannill is a maiden name, and her legal name is currently Elizabeth Ann Fletcher), shouldn't she be alphabetized by the letter F, not P? This would move her up 27 spots on the seniority list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotpotato1234567890 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hotpotato1234567890: Given that the change is supported by the master list, I've carried out the change here, at the 116th Congress page, and at the 117th Congress page. Thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Special election results

In order to avoid an edit war with @Scribetastic, I'm bringing this discussion here. Per the talk page discussions here, particularly at Talk:Seniority in the United States House of Representatives § Members who enter on special elections and at Talk:Seniority in the United States House of Representatives § May 12, 2020 Special Elections, it was stated that we should not add members to the list until they've been sworn in (regardless of the fact that their seniority date is the start of the election). This follows the precedent that the list of The House itself. This same thing applies to the line of vacancies. With that line as it is currently at this diff, it looks like Celeste Maloy has been sworn in when that's not the case. It goes against what we currently have at: List of current members of the United States House of Representatives, United States House of Representatives, and other locations that specifically state that she is not yet a member. This also disregards the House's own websites and member rolls: Vacancies in the 118th Congress, List of Representatives (starting from Utah), website for UT-02. Similarly, we should not be adding members elected in any future elections until they're sworn in. Imagine adding the members for the 119th Congress when this one is still in session.

Looking at the edit summaries, it looks like this is a point of contention, so this needs to resolved ASAP with a stronger precedent for the future (if this article should still stand in the first place). It seems like users have had free rein for this which should not be the case. Pinging: @JTRH, @Pvmoutside since y'all were prior participants. AG202 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Maloy was sworn in Nov. 27. JTRH (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  @JTRH: The discussion is still relevant as it keeps occurring whenever there's a special election. AG202 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)