If the Senate is tied, how do the leadership positions work?

[Bill McBlueState]

There's a possibility that after the elections, the Senate will have 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

We all know that anytime a vote on legislation is tied 50-50, the Vice President casts the tiebreaker, so Republicans would still be able to pass their own laws.

But in a tied Senate, how are leadership and committee membership determined? I assume Cheney doesn't get to vote on the Senate's internal organization. Do we have committee co-chairs and co-leaders on the floor? Are committees made up of equal numbers from each party? In a situation like that, Republicans would have the last straw, but they might have a hard time getting their legislation up for a vote.

[skipos]

1. I'd like to know too. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. well, recall that Darth Cheney has the tie breaking vote.

The committees, I believe, are split 50-50. As for the majority/minority leader, I don't know, but I suspect that the senate has to choose, and since the VP is the president of the senate, we would end up with cat killers and long distance diagnosticians as the majority leaders.

[demnan]

3. Wasn't the Senate tied before Jeffords

became an Independent? As I recall the Committee chairmen changed and everything because Jeffords came over and caucused with the Democrats. So the Committee chairs were all Republican before that. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Maybe there was only one Independent then and that's how the scales were tipped.

[TheVirginian]

4. If the Senate is tied, the GOP remains in the majoritiy

Which means chairmanships, majority leader, the whole works.

[Divernan]

5. And what is your authority for your post.?

Is this just the way you think it will be, a wild guess, what? If you do have access to specific Senate rules which govern this, then please quote them. I don't mean to get on your case specifically, but so many people on DU post as facts statements of stuff they really don't know. For example, the other day in a disucussion of the Cuba/US lease agreement on Guantanamo, a number of posters rushed to say that there was a 99 year lease. This was incorrect. The lease is a unique one which is in perpetuity. When I posted that information, I cited the authority for it.

[zbdent]

6. Just go back and look at all the debating that was going on in

the first part of 2001 ... you should find your answers there ... up until Jeffords jumped ship.

[135th]

7. It would be just like 2001,

Bush would use his bipartisanship to be a uniter (not a divider) and everything would be rainbows and sunshine!

[zbdent]

9. and, of course, there would be another massive terrorist attack

to blame, this time, on the Dem congress inaction ...

[benny05]

8. With the scenario you just painted

GOP chairs remain where they are; they are still the majority.

[Bill McBlueState]

10. Give me enough time, and I'll find an answer!

Some posters have said that the Senate stays in Republican hands due to Cheney's vote. This was the case in 2001. From senate.gov:

From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. ...

I'm still left to wonder about how this works, procedurally. Would Cheney actually cast a vote in the elections of leadership positions? Or would the Democrats just roll over and cede control without such a vote?