Abortion bans are putting women's lives in danger, and it's not by accident.
This is a situation Republicans explicitly manufactured simply because they believe they should decide what a woman does with her body, no matter the consequences.
We've got to keep fighting back.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Washington
Patty Murray
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 843
Yes26%
No69%
Present0%
Not Voting6%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Patty Murray
U.S. SenatorDemocratWashington
SoupScore
Patty's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 36 sponsored · 172 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Senate Republicans are blindly confirming unqualified, MAGA loyalists to lifetime appointments on our federal bench and hoping you won't notice.
The only way we can stop this partisan takeover of our courts is with a Democratic Senate majority.
The Trump administration is politicizing federal funding in a truly obscene and unforgivable way & robbing communities of funding they're owed.
Republicans should work with Democrats to stop this plan in its tracks.
Mifepristone is SAFE and EFFECTIVE—and one of the most studied medications we have.
FDA opening a new study has nothing to do with science and everything to do with advancing the anti-abortion movement's agenda to control women's bodies and lives.
Trump's DHS thinks it can avoid answering for the inhumane conditions and rising death toll of its detainees by no longer tracking it.
Absolutely not.
DHS has something to hide and Members of Congress must fight for transparency & accountability.
Federal agents killed two American citizens in Minneapolis. Tear-gassed and brutalized families. Detained thousands of children and pregnant women.
How do Republicans respond? At nearly 5AM they passed $70 billion more for ICE, no questions. No reforms. No accountability.
Instead of doing ANYTHING to help families afford the health care or groceries, Republicans forced a marathon voting session to send ICE a $70 billion check.
No reforms, zero accountability, and they rolled over for Trump—again.
Make sure everyone knows it.
It’s past 4 AM and the Senate is still voting. Why?
Because Republicans want to cut ICE another $70 billion check.
They found money for Stephen Miller, but there’s nothing to make health care more affordable.
It’s past midnight and Republicans are fighting to pass $70 billion for ICE—but they can't find a single cent to make health care more affordable.
All while Trump's war and tariffs send prices surging.
That's the Republican agenda: Drive costs higher. Do nothing for families.
In case you didn't know, Republicans have put the entire Senate floor on hold so they can jam through a $70 BILLION check for ICE.
After all the brutality we've seen, this is how they respond: A blank check and an absolute refusal of commonsense reforms.
I'm voting NO.
Republicans should work with Democrats to ban Trump's criminal slush fund. In law. Today.
Why won't they? Because the President has explicitly said he LOVES it—and Republicans are more than willing to cut checks to violent insurrectionists with YOUR tax dollars.
Back in March, Rubio said this war would end in "weeks, not months."
Yet, here we are, 4 months later.
Hundreds of troops injured or killed. Billions of dollars set on fire for a war Americans do NOT support.
Republicans voted down an amendment to block Trump's $1.8 BILLION slush fund for violent insurrectionists.
They're choosing to bend the knee to this corrupt President who wants to pay off cop beaters—all while Trump & Republicans won't spend a cent to lower health care costs.
Reposted bySenator Patty Murray
@murray.senate.gov to Sec. Rubio on Trump’s budget request:
The administration wants to spend $1.5 trillion on war and not a cent for childcare or to make healthcare more affordable.
BREAKING: Senate Republicans have just begun a marathon vote-a-rama in the Senate.
Why? Not to lower health care or housing costs. Instead, they are fighting tooth & nail to give ICE another $70 billion blank check with ZERO reforms.
A disgrace.
Trump and Stephen Miller built up a paramilitary force at DHS that they essentially promised immunity, and set it loose on American communities.
I'm not going to write a blank check for a federal agency that refuses to distinguish between American citizens and violent criminals.
I'll take my wins where I can get 'em!
My bill with @repricklarsen.bsky.social to restore marine habitats in the Northwest Straits just passed the House!
I'll keep working to get it through the Senate so we can keep protecting marine species & growing WA state's outdoor recreation economy! 🌊🛶🌲
It's been two weeks since I connected Trump's Acting Attorney General with Epstein survivors and they haven't heard a peep from the DOJ. That's disgraceful.
Todd Blanche said he'd meet with them—and I will not let him off the hook.
Epstein survivors deserve justice.
I trust Trump about as far as I could throw him.
Congress needs to BAN any kind of corrupt slush fund like this from EVER existing.
A wink and a nod won't cut it—we need to ban it by LAW.
Everyone should be able to get affordable health care close to home.
But after Trump and Republicans passed the largest health care cuts in American history and refused to extend the ACA tax credits, rural communities are being hit the hardest. washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/06/01/w...
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History843 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
843 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-23 | H. Con. Res. 86 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-06-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (67-30) |
| 2026-06-22 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Accept House changes | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion Agreed to (85-5) |
| 2026-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-39) |
| 2026-06-18 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-8, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-17 | S. Res. 616 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.Res. 616 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (44-50) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (55-39) |
| 2026-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-41) |
| 2026-06-16 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (87-8) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 172 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 172 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-48) |
| 2026-06-16 | S.J. Res. 190 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-48) |
| 2026-06-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-43) |
| 2026-06-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-44) |
| 2026-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-06-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Budgetary Discipline Re: Lee Amdt. No. 5804) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 1318 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (52-47) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schiff Amdt. No. 5740) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 5632) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (45-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Cassidy Amdt. No. 5812) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Coons Amdt. No. 5457) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | S. 2 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2026-06-05 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Durbin Amdt. No. 5806) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Booker Amdt. No. 5803) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 5485) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5451) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (45-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Warnock Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kim Amdt. No. 5545) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 5501) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (51-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Graham Amdt. No. 5779) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 5556) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hassan Amdt. No. 5535) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Ossoff Motion to Commit S. 2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with Instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 5514) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 5512) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (53-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-06-04 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Tillis Amdt. No. 5452) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (15-84) |
| 2026-06-04 | S. 2 (119th) | Motion (Schumer motion to commit S.2 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-06-03 | S. 2 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2026-06-03 | S.J. Res. 188 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-53) |
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.
Page 1 / 17Next →