Double vacancy before President takes office when only cabinet is next

[DTF955Baseballfan]

This is most likely to happen in 1913 so let me use that as an example of what I am asking. Woodrow Wilson notably almost got seriously injured in an accident while campaigning. He avoided that, but his stubbornness means that he could easily have not let people know how bad off he was until after he was elected and votes were counted. So what if he dies and then vice president-elect Marshall dies sometime in February?

One problem with only the cabinet in the line of succession is that after the president leaves office I'm not sure if the cabinet secretaries necessarily continue on. Of course, Robert Gates remained on for a couple years in the Obama Administration but I don't remember if he had to be reconfirmed or not. And I'm not sure if the same tradition would hold a century earlier.

If Phiilander Knox does retain his post after March 4th, then what? I suppose that, since the Democrats won, he could simply appoint someone like Champ Clark to be Secretary of State and then resign. Or, maybe Congress would just amend the presidential order of succession really fast. I don't know if that would seem like it was being railroaded through but with the double tragedy one would hope that both parties would agree on what was to be done.

Edit: 1933 would also be an interesting change in party situation, but John and skarner live to be 99. I would think his health would be less frail although perhaps that would be more likely. I wonder who the Henry Stimson would do if FDR is assassinated and Garner dies. That would make it seem more important to put perhaps a big new dealer, in to show a united stance against the assassination.

 

[West234]

Maybe if Herbert Hover is killed by the train bomb placed by Argentinian anarchists in 1928 and Charles Curtis has a sudden heart attack due to his existing health issues and dies a few weeks later you could have a similar situation.

 

[marktaha]

Before or after Electoral College vote?

 

[asupackman]

Skimming the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, if it's an incoming, not incumbent, President and VP, after the electoral votes have been counted,... it doesn't say and who knows what would have actually happened. The Succession Act of 1792 gave Congress the power to call a special election two months from the date Congress called for the election with the winner taking office the next March 4th, now that language had been removed from the Succession Act of 1886, but the Constitution does give Congress the power to determine presidential succession after the VP. If I had to guess some sort of deal would have been worked out behind the scenes with something along the lines of

-The sitting (outgoing) Secretary of State would have been sworn in as acting-President on March 4th with the intention of only serving one year. (Possibly with the understanding that he will not be a candidate in the special election).
- Congress gives itself the power to call a special election, scheduled in two months, and the winner is sworn in next March 4th.

In reality, unless there's a law I'm overlooking (and it's possible I am) this would be a giant grey area that would have to be settled based on the politics of the day. It would be similar to when John Tyler became the first VP to succeed to the Presidency because the incumbent died. Many people thought he was the "Acting President" but through force of will, and finally Congressional acknowledgement, he established the precedent of the VP actually becoming the new president and not a caretaker. This situation would be similar, only murkier.