Washington – Resurgent Democrats say that if the Senate is equally divided in the new Congress they will demand the kind of power-sharing arrangement similar to the one worked out six years ago when Democrats and Republicans each held 50 votes.
Control of the Senate was still hanging today, but Democrats were assured of 50 votes with the defeat of GOP Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana. They led in Virginia over GOP Sen. George Allen, setting the stage for a possible 51-49 majority that would include two Democrat-voting independents, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former-Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
Lieberman, who lost in his state’s Democratic primary, and Sanders, a longtime House member who consistently sided with the Democrats, have pledged to support the Democratic caucus. Sanders succeeds retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords, another independent who generally voted with the Democrats.
Under a 50-50 split, Republicans would not lose their majority status because Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the Senate, holds a tie-breaking vote. But Democrats would seek a greater presence on committees and more say in policymaking.
They will cite as a framework the deal worked out by the then-leaders of the two parties, Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Tom Daschle, D-S.D., after the 2000 election ended in a 50-50 tie.
Under that deal, the parties received equal representation on committees. Committee staff positions and funding were also evenly divided. Republicans chose the committee chairmen and controlled the agenda on the Senate floor.
That 2001 agreement “should serve as a useful guidepost for any negotiations,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid will presumably conduct those negotiations with Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the successor-apparent to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who is retiring at the end of this session.
But reaching a formula for power-sharing could be tougher this time around. In 2001, President Bush was new to the White House and still promising to be “a uniter, not a divider.” Today, Congress is as divided along partisan lines as it has been in years, and both Reid and McConnell can be highly combative politicians.
The Lott-Daschle deal was criticized at the time by some Republicans who considered it overly generous to Democrats. Indeed, when Jeffords defected from the Republican Party in June 2001 to become an independent allied with the Democrats, the Democrats took back control with Daschle as majority leader.
Republicans regained the majority in November 2002, when Republican James Talent defeated Missouri’s appointed senator, Jean Carnahan, in a special election. But the committee ratio arrangement worked out between Lott and Daschle was largely in place until the new Congress in 2003. Since then, Republicans have maintained power and held majorities on Senate committees, generally with a two- or three-seat advantage.
Much longer ago, in 1881, the Senate was deadlocked at 38-38 when Republicans, in control of the White House, won the allegiance of a wavering independent by promising him the Agriculture Committee chairmanship. Republicans took over control of the major committees, while Democrats took advantage of GOP disarray to hold onto staff positions such as sergeant at arms and secretary of the Senate.
State legislatures have at times found more congenial ways to deal with ties. The Indiana House in 1988 created co-speakers who presided on alternate days. The Wyoming Senate in 1974 resolved a tie by flipping a coin.
