Talk:List of special elections to the United States Senate

First direct election

I don't know what kind of citation you need for Lee having been the first directly elected senator. The 17th Amendment went into effect on April 8, 1913. His special election was in November of 1913. There were no other special elections that year. -- ANONYMOUS

• I put "{{fact}}" there so we can cite the source for the claim. (See WP:NOR). Before the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, there were direct elections in some states, depending on state law. But the Amendment mandated direct elections in every state. —Markles 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Election" column

Shortly after I created this article, I added a column for "Election." The idea I had at the time was linking to the articles which discussed the actual elections in depth. For example, for the Mel Carnahan row, the election link is United States Senate elections, 2002 (piped as "[[United States Senate elections, 2002|2002") because in that election, his elected successor (Jim Talent) was selected.

But now that this page as evolved with the very able work of User:ModRocker86, I now realize that there's a problem with this column. In some cases, the link doesn't actually go to an article about the corresponding election. See, for example, the Lloyd Bentsen row, in which Kay Bailey Hutchison was elected on June 5, 1993, and not in conjunction with a November general election.

Keep in mind that there ought to be some link to articles which discuss each election in depth.

Any suggestions on what to do?—Markles 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe most of the off year special elections are mentioned, atleast in passing, in the general election articles. For example, the Hutchison election was mentioned in the text of United States Senate elections, 1992 even though it is not in the election results table. Perhaps the link could go to whichever election article mentions the special election in question.ModRocker86 04:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nebraska: 1986

Can somebody add Nebraska in 1986 where Bob Kerrey beat David Karnes. The info for the people is on the Senate Elections pages for 82 and 88. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.177.3 (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done—Markles 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Selection by legislatures

Prior to the 17th Amendment, most (but not all) states picked their Senators as per the original text Article "…chosen by the Legislature thereof…." They weren't elected or appointed but chosen.

If some of them were mid-term, should we include those Senators as specially "elected"? I'm inclined to say No, but I'm really not sure. Let's develop a consensus here.—Markles 13:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna say No as well. This page and all the other Senate election articles are designed to cover popular elections. Adding Senators chosen by legislatures dilutes the original purpose of this article to chronicle all popular Senate special elections.Moodyfloydwhofan (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Was that the original purpose of this article? I created this article by copying the idea from List of special elections to the United States House of Representatives. I really don't know if I had a purpose one way or the other. I guess it could be seen as a list of elections to fill an open seat. I'm not inclined to agree with that idea, but I'm just throwing it out there. —Markles 15:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, you are right as I don't know what your original purpose was in creating the article. Still, the article is "List of special elections to the United States Senate" and I don't think being chosen by a legislature constitutes an election.Moodyfloydwhofan (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

NJ 1982

An editor added the 1982 Senate election in NJ as a Special Election. Was it actually a special election? Didn't Williams's term just come to an end and Brady didn't seek the elected seat? I think Brady then resigned after Lautenberg was elected and Lautenberg was appointed to get advantageous seniority. —Markles 11:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• It was a special election. Lautenberg took office on Decemeber 27 1982. Had it been just a regularly scheduled election, he would have assued office on January 3, 1983. —Islandersa 20 January 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC).

• • Just because he started early, doesn't mean it was a special election. I think Lautenberg was elected in November for the term beginning January. Baker then resigned and Lautenberg was appointed . That's what Lautenberg's article says.—Markles 16:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

I have two questions for the readers and editors of this article.—Markles 10:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sort order

Should we sort the list by the date of the vacancy or by the date of the special election? It is, after all, a list about elections, not about vacancies.—Markles 10:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice that they were sorted by vacancy at first... Yes, I'd say by election, then by vacancy. —Nightstallion 10:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. By date of election.DCmacnut<> 16:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -Rrius (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Election. It's a list of Elections. Sort by vacancies for the "List of vacancies of the U.S. Senate". Some vacancies failed to have the action of state authorities to achieve a special election, and were filled by the general election. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Yellowdesk Pvmoutside (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you two think you are disagreeing with anyone? The previous editors, including me, were saying that it should be sorted by election date. Nightstallion was saying that if there are two or more elections on the same day, they should sorted by the date of the vacancy. Dcmacnut and I agreed with that. -Rrius (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

On second viewing, that looks snarky, but I meant the question straight. Anyway, I've gone ahead and re-ordered the list. -Rrius (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just responding in the form of the question as put forward by Markles. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• In your edit summary for the contribution I am now responding to, you asked where the conversation I mention is. I would refer you to everything said between Markles's question and your response to it. I merely what happened there. -Rrius (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Special election by state legislatures

Back when state legislatures elected Senators (pre 17th amendment era), there were many many many elections which did not coincide with the end of a six-year term. They could, I suppose, be classified as "special elections." The Biographical Directory of Congress, meanwhile, refers to some of those as "appointments."—Markles 10:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mh. Difficult question, I suppose... —Nightstallion 10:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This article should only include special elections that occur pursuant to the 17th Amendment. "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authorty of such state shall issue writs of election." Prior to the 17th Amendment and the direct election of senators, there was no provision in the constitution to addressing Senate vacancies. State legislatures simply appointed/elected a new senator as needed. Sometimes, seats remained vacant for an entire congress because the legislature never acted on an appointment. Therefore, any vacancies filled by a state legislature prior to ratification of the 17th Amendment would be considered appointments, and not special elections.DCmacnut<> 16:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Popular elections are not the only kind. The fact that legislatures allowed gubernatorial appointments to lapse, leaving the seats vacant, is immaterial. If no election occurred, it would not be listed here. That is no different from gubernatorial appointments now that by state law or gubernatorial failure to call a special election last until the end of the term. The logic "some seats were left vacant, therefore they are appointments" makes no sense to me. The legislatures also failed to elect at the beginning of terms.

Aside from the amount of work involved, there is no reason not to include pre-17th Amendment short-term elections. Terms were six years long, and if vacated early, an elected replacement served the remainder of the term, not six years. The only thing different for the purposes of this article is who does the electing. -Rrius (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I wish to point out there were possibly special elections before the 17th amendment, depending on how the states that did elect their Senators in a general election structured such vacancies and transitions. The 17th Amendment merely made the general election mandatory, instead of optional. As to Markles question, it's a metaphysical question. The legislature was the electing body, and even routine elections were more than a little irregular, if not "special". There's an easy example for New Hampshire, where the most recently elected legislature authorized to elect a Senator had not yet convened when Bainbridge Wadleigh's term expired March 3, 1879, and an appointee was in office for several months until a legislative election could occur. I would be inclined to suggest demarcating special elections for those instances where there was a "general election", and have a different list for odd elections in earlier years. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Direct elections held in the states

This below from Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
From United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, The Official Results by Michael J. Dubin

Before ratification of Seventeenth Amendment:

• 1906: Oregon
  • Class 2, Vacancy, term ending 1907
  • Class 2, Full term, 1907-1913
• 1908: Nevada
  • Class 3, Full term, 1909-1915
• 1911: Arizona (pending statehood)
  • Class 1, Long term, 1912-1917
  • Class 3, Short term, 1912-1915
• 1912: Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma
  • Class 2, Full term, 1913-1919

After ratification of Seventeenth Amendment:

• 1913: Maryland
  • Class 1, Vacancy, term ending 1917
• 1914: All 32 Class 3 Senators, term 1915-1921
• 1916: All 32 Class 1 Senators, term 1917-1923
• 1918: All 32 Class 2 Senators, term 1919-1925

The new States of Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii are the only states never to have legislatively chosen U.S. Senators. Oklahoma (1907) and New Mexico (1912) apparently legislatively chose U.S. Senators only once.

---

(outdent) I stand corrected. I was hung up on the "election" aspect and wasn't considering the details, that regardless of how they became senators, they still filled a "vacancy" and served less than 6 year terms.DCmacnut<> 14:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Two others

• Mark Hanna was appointed senator from Ohio on March 5, 1897 vice John Sherman (Ohio), resigned the previous day to become secretary of state. He was elected by the legislature on January 12, 1898 for the remainder of Sherman's term expiring March 4, 1899. When Hanna died in February 1904, he had already been re-elected by the legislature, which reconvened later in 1904 to have two special elections, both of which Charles Dick, who had been appointed by Governor Myron Herrick, both for the remainder of Hanna's 1899-1905 term, and then for the subsequent term which Hanna had been elected to but of course never served. Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Should new seats be counted as "special"?

Is an election to a "new seat" a "special" election? If so, then we'd need to add elections for 74 seats (2 x 37 states that weren't original 13). I don't think they should be counted in this list. Late elections aren't counted; those are the ones before the 17th amendment in which the state legislature failed to elect a Senator before the congress began. I welcome further discussion. —GoldRingChip 12:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alaska and Hawaii are the only states that have been admitted since the 17th Amendment, so without doing further research, AFAIK they're the only states whose Senate seats were originally filled by popular vote. I would count the 1958 Alaska elections as special, in the popular-election sense of the term, because they were both for less than six-year terms, and the 1959 Hawaii elections as special because they didn't occur on a standard federal election day and the terms didn't start at the beginning of a Congress. I don't think that sets a precedent that we have to go back and dig up every original legislative election to every newly-created seat from Vermont to Arizona and add it to the list if it didn't occur at the standard time or for a standard term. But in any case, the list does come with the disclaimer that it's incomplete. JTRH (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Without doing further research" means I hadn't noticed the discussion of Arizona a couple of paragraphs above. But my point stands. JTRH (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Who was the last Senator elected by a legislature?

The Joseph Taylor Robinson article claims he was the last Senator elected by a legislature, on Jan. 27, 1913 (only four days after his predecessor had been elected to fill an unexpired term). But the Lawrence Yates Sherman article says he was elected by his state legislature on Mar. 26, 1913. Can we clear this up? JTRH (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional information

A couple of few things I'd like to see added to the chart, if someone has time:

1. A designation for those Senators who were popularly elected prior to the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment;
   
2. When an appointee is not the winner of the subsequent special election, an indication of whether he/she did not seek election, was defeated for nomination, or defeated for election to the remainder of the term;
   
3. An indication that Kennedy, Johnson, Obama, Biden, etc., were President-elect or Vice President-elect at the time of their resignation from the Senate (it's already given in prose form in Nixon's entry, but a footnote for all would be preferable).

JTRH (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I numbered them so I could respond to each!

1. I'm not sure this really matters, it would just clutter the chart.
2. Appointees' status might be useful.
3. President really isn't necessary or even relevant.

—GoldRingChip 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

New election

I haven't done much of this sort of thing on Wikipedia, and sorry if this is a Talk page non-sequitur, but the MA special election concluded, and I don't know how to add the results because I don't know how these tables work. Just needed to tell someone about it to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.90.238 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

needs factcheck

This is a very helpful resource, but I noticed a couple errors in reviewing elections held separately from congressional elections. For example:

• Andrew Johnson in 1857 was picked by the legislature, not an election. I would be surprised if many 19th century selections were done by popular election.
• The Nevada election in 1942 was in November, not December. (The winner's page on Wikipedia says <<Later, he was elected as a Democrat to Congress and served from 1933 until December 7, 1942, when he resigned, having been elected to the United States Senate to fill the unexpired term of Key Pittman on November 3, 1942. Scrugham served from December 7, 1942, until his death on June 23, 1945>>

I assume someone can fix these in the chart, but others ideally would be factchecked. RRichie (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost all Senators before 1911 were elected by the state legislatures, regular as well as special elections. The US Constitution was changed then, requiring popular elections. The legislative elections are elections, nonetheless. Kraxler (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Appointees

Concerning the recent removals of some examples, the 1966 Minnesota Senate election was not a special election. Mondale was appointed to finish Humphrey's term and the seat was up for election anyway. The 1970 New York Senate election was also not a special election. Buckley, who won the election did not become Senator until January 3, 1971, when the next term began and Goodall was appointed to serve the remainder of Kennedy's term, an act that caused controversy given that the appointment lasted more than 2 years. Likewise the 1976 Minnesota senate election was also not special election, as the seat was up for regular election. While the winner was appointed to the seat before the nest term began, that was a common feature in that time for outgoing senators to resign early so that their elected successors would get a leg up in seniority. The 2002 Minnesota Senate election was also not a special election as Coleman didn't become Senator until the next term began on January 3, 2003 and Barkley was appointed to finish the term and in fact was appointed only the day before the election. As such, none of those elections qualify as special elections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.10.21 (talk • contribs)

My cut

"Since 1913, 184 senators have been appointed to fill vacancies. Of those, 63 did not later run for election; 56 ran and lost the subsequent special election; and 60 ran and won the election." There's a couple of problems here 1) 63, 56, and 60 do not add up to 184 2)The source (from 2009) actually states 183, 62, 56, and 60 - which also doesn't add up --Khajidha (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Franken

Al Franken has not resigned. He has announced his intention to do so in the near future. That is not the same thing. And December 7 was not the effective date in any case. I don't know how to do the code that renders something invisible until it actually takes effect, while preserving it for future use. Can someone do that, please? That's better than eliminating it entirely. JTRH (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Done—GoldRingChip 19:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Chip. JTRH (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of special elections to the United States Senate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719174041/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40421_20090310.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40421_20090310.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204124958/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/ to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd108-222/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)