Senate back to 50-50 with Johnson out

[Ron Burgundy]

AP - The last time the Senate convened with a perfect balance of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, the two parties struck a power-sharing agreement.
WASHINGTON - Suddenly, the Democrats' grip on the Senate looks very tenuous indeed. With the party poised to take power with a 51-49 edge in January, Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record)'s unexpected hospitalization ignited the possibility of a 50-50 Senate and a return to the unprecedented power-sharing pact that existed during the first half of 2001.

Johnson's illness alone would not create a vacancy in the Senate. Senators have convalesced for months, even years, and retained their Senate seats. Another South Dakota Senator, Republican Karl Mundt, was incapacitated by a stroke in 1969, but served until the end of his term in 1972.

Only resignation, death or expulsion by two-thirds of the Senate can create a vacancy.

If Johnson's seat would become vacant sometime in the next two years, South Dakota Gov. Michael Rounds, a Republican, would select a replacement. A GOP appointment would split the Senate anew, giving Vice President Dick Cheney the tie-breaking role and, thus, the numerical majority in the chamber to the Republicans.

But that doesn't necessarily mean Republicans would be in charge.

On Jan. 4, the first day of the new Congress, the Senate will vote on a resolution that will officially establish Democrats as the party in the majority, give Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada control over the legislative agenda, set the ratios of committee representation and other organizational matters.

That organizing resolution would still govern, even if the membership of the Senate changed. Senate associate historian Don Ritchie said the resolution could include language that spells out what would happen if there is an even split.

"This is really a matter of discussion between the Democratic and Republican leaders," Ritchie said.

But current and former GOP Senate officials said such a step would be highly unlikely. Indeed, such a move would probably paralyze the Senate.

If a 50-50 split occurs before Jan. 4, however, the parties would likely have to negotiate a power sharing agreement similar to the one then-Republican Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota negotiated in 2000.

Under that agreement, the parties split their representation on committees evenly. Committee staff positions and funding were also split equally. Republicans chose the committee chairmen and controlled the agenda on the Senate floor. Under the terms of the deal, any party that gained a numerical majority would then have control of the Senate.

By June 2001, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from being a Republican to an Independent who caucused with Democrats, putting Democrats in charge.

Before that, Ritchie said, "we have not had any formal means of changing party majorities."

If the Senate splits once again, Republicans would insist on drafting a new organizing resolution, prompting the same kind of difficult negotiations that Daschle and Lott had in 2000.

Absent some kind of deal, the Senate could see itself repeating history.

In 1953-54, Republicans kept control of the Senate even though the deaths of several senators gave the numerical plurality to Democrats. The arrangement made the Senate virtually ungovernable for the GOP.

"I have the responsibilities of being the majority leader in this body without having a majority," Republican Leader William Knowland of California complained at the time.

To which then-Democratic Leader Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas replied: "If anyone has more problems than a majority leader with a minority, it is a minority leader with a majority."