Richard J. Durbin headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Illinois
Born
November 21, 1944
Age 81
Phone
(202) 224-2152
Office
711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Illinois

Richard J. Durbin

Richard Joseph Durbin is an American politician and attorney serving as the senior United States senator from the state of Illinois, a seat he has held since 1997. A member of the Democratic Party, Durbin is in his fifth Senate term and has served since 2005 as the Senate Democratic Whip and since 2025 as the Senate minority whip. He is the longest-serving Democratic whip since the position was established in 1913. Durbin chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2021 to 2025, and led the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination hearings.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 789
Yes34%
No63%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align93%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Richard J. Durbin headshot
Richard J. Durbin
U.S. SenatorDemocratIllinois
SoupScore
Richard J.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 126 sponsored · 340 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

The Epstein files must come to light. So, we provided an amendment to an appropriations bill to require Attorney General Bondi retain, preserve, and compile the Epstein files and submit a report to Congress. It passed unanimously.
The Illinois agricultural sector is vital to our state’s economy. This week, I sat down with members of the Illinois Corn Growers to discuss their federal policy priorities.
Thanks to fed funded research, Illinois is #1 in the nation and 5th in the world for growing soybeans. But Donald Trump’s cuts to USAID and USDA is Making China Great in ag research. This damages the long-term strategy for U.S. farming. Read more in my op-ed. ⬇️
Today, Chairman Grassley blocked Democratic members from discussing the controversial records of nominees like Emil Bove and Jeanine Pirro, shut down debate, and forced votes for no apparent reason. My question is this: what are my Senate Republican colleagues trying to hide?
When I was Chair, I only limited debate when Republicans invoked Senate rules to shut down Committee meetings, and after Committee members were given ample opportunities to voice their concerns about nominees on the agenda.
And today, he cut off debate time on Mr. Bove’s nomination before turning to his vote, as well as nine other nominations, including Ms. Pirro’s. Chairman Grassley claimed that he was following Committee precedent. This is simply untrue.
Given Mr. Reuveni’s credible allegations against Mr. Bove, which, if true, clearly disqualify him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, I called for the Committee to hear from Mr. Reuveni, under oath, before we voted on Mr. Bove’s nomination. But Chairman Grassley denied that request.
I asked Mr. Reuveni whether he could substantiate his claims, and in response, he provided text messages, email exchanges, and other documents corroborating his allegations.
Additionally, Erez Reuveni, a career Justice Department attorney who defended the first Trump Administration’s immigration policies, filed a whistleblower complaint with my office regarding Mr. Bove.
He led the Administration’s effort to strike a corrupt bargain with New York City Mayor Eric Adams and has been trailed by a history of complaints—long predating his affiliation with President Trump—about his temperament, poor judgment, and lack of candor before the court.
Today’s Committee executive business meeting included 10 nominees—among them Emil Bove, nominated for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. Mr. Bove belongs nowhere near the federal bench.
Big Pharma’s newest scheme funnels patients to telehealth companies chosen and paid by drug companies—this can lead to inappropriate prescribing. My colleagues and I are exposing Big Pharma’s ploy to promote and sell expensive medications, risking inferior patient care.
BREAKING: I just released an investigative report on Big Pharma’s sales scheme to steer patients towards costly medications. Handpicking telehealth companies to treat Pfizer & Eli Lilly patients creates a potential conflict of interest & raises Rx costs.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
789 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-05-08H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (50-43)
2025-05-08S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (50-38)
2025-05-07S.J. Res. 13 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-47)
2025-05-06H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-06S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-05-06S.J. Res. 13 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2025-05-06H.J. Res. 61 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (55-45)
2025-05-05H.J. Res. 61 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-43)
2025-05-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-05-01S.J. Res. 31 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-46)
2025-05-01H.J. Res. 75 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-45)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 31 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-40)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 49 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (49-49, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 49 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Defeated (49-49)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 75 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-46)
2025-04-29H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (83-14)
2025-04-29End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-13)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-36)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-36)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-39)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (67-29)
2025-04-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (64-27)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (60-25)
2025-04-11End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-25)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-26)
2025-04-11End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-25)
2025-04-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-46)
2025-04-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-10H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-44)
2025-04-09H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Begin considerationNOT_VOTINGNOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-42)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-37)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-04-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-32)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-04-07End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-39)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48)

Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.

← PrevPage 12 / 16Next →