Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Rhode Island
Born
October 20, 1955
Age 70
Phone
(202) 224-2921
Office
530 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island

Sheldon Whitehouse

Voting Record — 890
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Sheldon Whitehouse headshot
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 96 sponsored · 259 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

New ocean temperature record set as fossil fuel keeps dumping zettajoules (look it up — big-ass number!) of excess heat into the ocean every year. “Nothing to see here,” say the polluters. They lie. marine.copernicus.eu/press/press-...
A little reminder about Republican Billionaires’ Bill: “extend[ed] roughly $4.5T in tax cuts disproportionately benefiting corporations and the wealthy over 10 years” while “addi[ing] a projected $4.7T to the national debt over the next decade.” Had enough? www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...
We just got even more evidence that American families are struggling under Trump’s economy. Fewer jobs, less wage growth, and people giving up on the job hunt altogether. And Trump couldn’t care less.
Breaking news: The U.S. economy added 57,000 jobs in June, less than expected. The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.2 percent, according to Labor Department data.
Creepy billionaires running the country from behind a captured Court is no way to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our great Republic. That is not what the Founders intended then, and it doesn’t serve We the People today.
We built defenses against this corruption, over decades. With those defenses pulled down by the extremists of this billionaire-built Court, it’s time for a jolt of democracy. It’s time to wake up. It’s time for major court reform.
This is their payday. A quick trip to the Oval Office, a big check to a superPAC, and presto! Everyone running the agency fired or brought to heel; agencies delivering results the corrupt donors want; a license for big money corruption.
They even funded academic hothouses (“think tanks”) to propagate self-serving legal doctrines for their Court like “major questions” and “unitary executive.” It’s nonsense, but it aligns perfectly with the goals of billionaire cheaters and polluters.
They even built a false narrative of an “administrative state” made up of “unaccountable bureaucrats” (heard that before?). In fact, agencies are highly accountable to Congress (CRA, e.g.), courts (APA, e.g.) and the president (appointees, e.g.).
Nobody wins except big polluters and economic cheaters who fear sensible and honest regulation, and prefer corrupt influence. That’s very, very few people, but they’re very, very rich, and they give very, very big money to Republicans.
Six extremists on the billionaire-built Supreme Court just upended that: ninety years of its own precedent, and over 100 years of practice, reliance and success. They think they know better, than Congress, the people, their own predecessors, and all fifty states.
Expertise helped them resist being tricked by industry. Independence (“quasi,” anyway) helped them resist corrupt influence. Bipartisanship steadied the ship. Yup, it worked. America became a global leader in regulated areas (securities and pharmaceuticals, e.g.).
For most of our American history, Congress set up agencies and commissions to deal with complex and specialized questions. We made them expert, independent and often bipartisan. Every single one of the fifty states has done the same at some point. It worked. 🧵
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
890 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
2025-06-30Motion (Motion to Waive Section 302(F) of the CBA Re: Amdt. No. 2414)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Motion (Blunt Rochester Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52)
2025-06-30Motion (Motion to Waive Section 302(F) of the CBA Re: Amdt. No. 2696)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Motion (Reed Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Motion (Lujan Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (48-52)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Motion (Wyden Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Motion (Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (49-51)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Motion (Schumer Motion to Commit H.R. 1 to the Committee on Finance with Instructions)YESYESMotion Rejected (47-53)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Decision of the Chair H.R. 1NONODecision of Chair Sustained (53-47)
2025-06-30H.R. 1 (119th)Decision of the Chair S.Amdt. 2360 to H.R. 1 (No short title on file)NONODecision of Chair Sustained (53-47)
2025-06-28H.R. 1 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49)
2025-06-27S.J. Res. 59 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 59YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (47-53)
2025-06-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-06-25End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-06-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-40)
2025-06-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-42)
2025-06-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (61-35)
2025-06-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (58-33)
2025-06-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-06-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-06-18End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-46)
2025-06-17S. 1582 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (68-30)
2025-06-17Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-06-17Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (57-40)
2025-06-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-06-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (46-39)
2025-06-16End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (44-33)
2025-06-12S. 1582 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-12S. 1582 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (67-30)
2025-06-12Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307)NONOMotion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-12S. 1582 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESMotion to Table Failed (45-52)
2025-06-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-06-11S.J. Res. 54 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (39-56)
2025-06-11S.J. Res. 53 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53YESYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (39-56)
2025-06-11S. 1582 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required)
2025-06-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-06-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-43)
2025-06-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-44)
2025-06-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2025-06-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (48-45)
2025-06-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-41)
2025-06-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-06-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-41)
2025-06-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-40)
2025-06-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-43)
2025-06-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-43)
2025-06-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-43)
2025-06-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (57-38)
2025-06-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-46)

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 / 18Next →