In Montana this morning, Jon Tester (D) declared victory in the closely-watched Senate race, and the AP agrees.
Democrats won a cliffhanger race in Montana on Wednesday that brought them to the brink of control of the Senate, after Americans sick of scandal and weary of war ended the Republican majority in the House.
With Democrats now assured of 50 Senate seats, the battle for outright control came down to Virginia, where the party’s candidate, Jim Webb, held a small lead.
Tester held a 3,128-vote lead over Burns with only one county left to count its votes. That county had fewer than 1,000 votes to report. An AP canvass of Montana counties estimated there were not enough provisional ballots still to be counted for Burns to overcome his deficit.
With 50 seats, Democrats are, obviously, one short of a majority, pending the results in Virginia. Of course, Jim Webb (D) is ahead by about 7,000 votes, so certainly appears to have a recount-proof lead, but just for the sake of discussion, what happens in a 50-50 Senate?
I’m glad you asked.
There is a precedent for a split-down-the-middle Senate, but only one: the first six months of 2001. Because Dick Cheney was in a position to break tie votes, the GOP technically assumed control of the chamber, but Tom Daschle and Trent Lott worked out an effective power-sharing deal. It worked surprisingly well. Dems didn’t chair committees, but they had an equal number of committee seats and equal committee resources.
Faced with the possibility, before yesterday, that the Senate could be evenly split again, Dems suggested that they’d be willing to return to the Lott-Daschle arrangement. Harry Reid’s office told the NYT a week ago, “What was done in 2001 should serve as a useful framework.”
Roll Call reported a couple of weeks ago, however, that the Senate GOP may be inclined to revisit the agreement and tilt the scales more in their favor.
A Republican Senate aide said the arrangement employed for a portion of 2001 certainly is one Senators will “pull off the shelf and read.” But the aide cautioned that it would serve as just “one of the things to think about. It is in no way a binding document.”
Six years ago when the Senate was split evenly for a period of the 107th Congress…Lott drew a rash of criticism from his own party for giving up too much, while Democrats largely were favorable toward the deal after having served at a five-seat disadvantage in the previous Congress. But, as Lott said at the time: “I believe Tom and I have a commitment to work together to find a way to deal with that that is fair and that will not kill the legislative agenda.” […]
[Presumptive Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell] may be more inclined than Lott to insist that his party be given greater power, since the Senate could be the party’s only Congressional foothold.
In other words, a 50-50 Senate could lead to a fairly serious partisan fight before the chamber even tries to start legislating.
Here’s to hoping Jim Webb makes the question moot.