Question about congressional proceedings

[Barnes]

A scenario a bit like this occurred in 107th Congress (2001-03), which, as we know, had several majority changes over its term.  The one that  I would single out is following the elections in November 2002, several causal vacancies were filled immediately giving Republicans a new technical majority.

However, the Senate was out of session when the new Senators took office and there was never an actual reorganization or change of leadership, or much of a wish to do so.

This is obviously a slightly different scenario, but my point is that I think it's very likely that both parties would stay as they are and simply wait for the vacancies to be filled seeing that such a situation would last for a relatively short period of time.

[Barnes]

It's an ordinary vote, so a majority of those voting or a tie with the veep deciding the issue is sufficient. That said, unless it looks like there would be a lengthy vacancy, I'd like to think the Senate retains enuf collegiality that it would resolve the situation so as to reflect who would likely get the post when all seats are filled.

Exactly.  Most likely with such a small majority either way, there wouldn't be any real shift in the actual agenda before the body, so there would be little reasons to go back and forth over a set of possibly only days.

[Barnes]

As an aside, the Senate doesn't hold an actual vote for the Majority Leader or any party leadership positions (same as the House), including the time that the majority changed mid-session in 2001.