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

Sheldon Whitehouse is an American politician and lawyer serving as the junior United States senator from Rhode Island, a seat he has held since 2007. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island from 1993 to 1998, and as the 71st attorney general of Rhode Island from 1999 to 2003. He was elected to the Senate In 2006, defeating Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee. He was reelected in 2012, 2018, and 2024.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 789
Yes31%
No65%
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 · 88 sponsored · 218 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Keeps getting weirder. For starters, how does a supposed billionaire running multiple businesses even know or care that a teenaged employee in a spa was hired away by a member? Makes NO sense. There had to be something else going on.
So I’m pretty sure I remember this right. But in one of those interviews I believe Michael Wolf said that Epstein suspected Trump of dropping a dime on him to the authorities. They got in a dispute over a real estate deal. That was their falling out. Trump was trying to buy an estate that …
Specifically, the stop work result for RI and CT ratepayers would be “tens of millions in higher electricity costs … each year.” All those assertions are sworn in court under oath, not Trumpster nonsense unsworn in the press. (They’re free to come to federal court in RI.)
Trumpster Zeldin and Trumpster Wright pretended in the press that I was all wrong about the stop work order raising electricity costs. Under oath, RI said the wind project would “yield substantial cost savings” with direct savings “estimated to be hundreds of millions.”
Maybe lower court judges should think about refusing to treat as binding precedent SCOTUS decisions whose analysis stands on demonstrably false facts. E.g., Citizens United whose factual premise that its unlimited political money would be transparent is demonstrably false.
It would be useful to know if the Marshals are investigating patterns or orchestration of threats against judges. We asked, and have gotten no answer. Bondi has a huge conflict of interest if MAGA is behind threats and she won’t allow investigation. www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...
Oh, please. For fifteen years, they’ve tolerated their own error that Citizens United political money would be transparent, which by that decision’s own terms is fifteen years of tolerating corruption. But when Trump wants something…
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
2025-10-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-10-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-10-01H.R. 5371 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (55-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-10-01S. 2882 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-30H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Defeated (55-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-30S. 2882 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Defeated (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-29S. 2806 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (37-61, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-09-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-45)
2025-09-19Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (47-43)
2025-09-19End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (47-45)
2025-09-19H.R. 5371 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Defeated (44-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-19S. 2882 (119th)Final passageYESYESBill Defeated (47-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-18Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-09-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-09-17Decision of the Chair PN12-19 and PN25-28 and PN12-45 and PN22-1 and PN22-2 and PN22-5 and PN22-27 and PN22-20 and PN22-21 and PN26-8 and PN26-34 and PN26-35 and PN55-41 and PN22-4 and PN22-8 and PN22-19 and PN26-1 and PN22-23 and PN25-40 and PN26-7 and PN26-19 and PN26-31 and PN60-3 and PN26-44 and PN25-2 and PN55-16 and PN60-9 and PN60-10 and PN129-8 and PN26-45 and PN141-37 and PN141-7 and PN141-28 and PN12-22 and PN25-21 and PN22-3 and PN26-22 and PN13-5 and PN22-24 and PN25-33 and PN141-18 and PN150-5 and PN345-16 and PN55-42 and PN54-6 and PN54-7 and PN55-45 and PN55-25YESYESDecision of Chair Not Sustained (47-52)
2025-09-17Motion to Reconsider PN55-25 and PN55-45 and PN54-7 and PN54-6 and PN55-42 and PN345-16 and PN150-5 and PN141-18 and PN25-33 and PN22-24 and PN13-5 and PN26-22 and PN22-3 and PN25-21 and PN12-22 and PN141-28 and PN141-7 and PN141-37 and PN26-45 and PN129-8 and PN60-10 and PN60-9 and PN55-16 and PN25-2 and PN26-44 and PN60-3 and PN26-31 and PN26-19 and PN26-7 and PN25-40 and PN22-23 and PN26-1 and PN22-19 and PN22-8 and PN22-4 and PN55-41 and PN26-35 and PN26-34 and PN26-8 and PN22-21 and PN22-20 and PN22-27 and PN22-5 and PN22-2 and PN22-1 and PN12-45 and PN12-19 and PN25-28NONOMotion to Reconsider Agreed to (51-47)
2025-09-17End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (51-48, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-16S. Con. Res. 22 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Rejected (36-62)
2025-09-16S.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Rejected (47-51)
2025-09-15Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (48-47)
2025-09-15End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-44)
2025-09-15S. Res. 377 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOResolution Agreed to (51-44)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Decision of the Chair S.Res. 377YESYESDecision of Chair Not Sustained (45-53)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)Motion to Reconsider S.Res. 377NONOMotion to Reconsider Agreed to (52-45)
2025-09-11S. Res. 377 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-09-10S. 2296 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (51-49)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-09S. Res. 377 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-09-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-09-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-09-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-09-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-43)
2025-09-04S. 2296 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (83-13)
2025-09-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-09-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-09-02S. 2296 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-14, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (71-23)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeYESNomination Confirmed (72-22)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-35)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-42)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNOYESNomination Confirmed (78-17)
2025-08-02End debateNOYESCloture Motion Agreed to (76-19)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)

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 6 / 16Next →