537 sitting members. Each one scored on documented roll-call votes, against a rubric that was written and approved before any score existed. Open a card to see every vote behind the grade, and the official roll call it came from.
It is not finished. We are publishing it while it is being built, and the empty seats are on purpose — a member with too thin a record is shown as thin, never handed a bad grade to fill a gap.
A grade of what, exactly
Not how liberal or conservative someone is. Not how hard they work, how often they show up, or whether we like them. One question only: when a recorded vote touched one of these subjects, which way did they vote?
A vote that protects people on those subjects counts up. A vote that takes protection away counts down. Each subject carries a published weight, and the result is a number from 0 to 100 — then a letter.
It is not a curve. The cutoffs above were fixed before a single score existed, so the spread is whatever the votes produced — not a ranking we shaped. Every vote behind every letter is listed on the member’s card, with a link to the official roll call. Check it.
A grade requires votes across at least 5 of the 8 rubric dimensions. Below that we show the record as too thin rather than summarising it — most of those are members elected recently who simply have not faced the mapped votes yet.
Every card opens, for everyone. All 537 members, every vote we scored, and a link to the official roll call behind each one. No signup, nothing held back.
What the letter means
A composite from 0 to 100, then a letter. It is not a curve — the cutoffs are fixed and the distribution is whatever the votes produce.
The eight dimensions, and what each is worth
Nobody reaches 8 of 8: Immigration & access to care and Data & science integrity have no scored vote yet, so in practice the board runs on 6. That is a gap in our mapping, not a sign that Congress has been idle — on immigration in particular it has voted repeatedly and appropriated heavily for enforcement. Those votes exist and are recorded; we have not finished mapping them.
Read this before you read the grades
On the measures mapped so far, voting was almost perfectly party-line. No Republican scored above 64; no Democrat below 66. The distributions do not overlap.
That is a result, not a thumb on the scale. The rubric was written and approved before any score existed, and every vote behind every grade is listed on the card with a link to the official record. Check it.
Votes span 2013–2025, and about half come from 2021–22. That is our backlog, not our judgement. It is the order we happened to map bills in — not a view that those years matter more, and not a finding about Congress. It is also why a member elected recently shows so little: we have not yet reached the votes they were present for.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 9 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 9 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 10 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
Scores 10 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 10 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Scores 6 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
Scores 1 point below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 9 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 14 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 10 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 3 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 6 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 3 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 6 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 3 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 6 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 10 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 13 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 13 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 14 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 15 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 16 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 5 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 15 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 3 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 3 points above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 13 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 14 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 20 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 17 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
The 6 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 16 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 6 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 9 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 9 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 36 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 14 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 10 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 11 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 11 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 14 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 4 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 4 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
Scores 10 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 4 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 6 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 13 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 14 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican House member (28).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 3 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic House member (83).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 14 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 8 points below the median Democratic House member (83).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 4 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 5 points below the median Republican House member (28).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 10 points above the median Republican House member (28).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Scores 1 point below the median Republican senator (24).
The 14 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 26 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 14 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural3 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
Scores 4 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 6 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 15 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 6 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Scores 5 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
Scores 3 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 2 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 18 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage6 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 7 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 15 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point above the median Republican senator (24).
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point above the median Republican senator (24).
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 15 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 30 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 2 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 18 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 19 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage7 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 2 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Scores 1 point above the median Republican senator (24).
The 11 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 19 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 2 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 14 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural3 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
Scores 4 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 10 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 15 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 2 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage6 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 2 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 15 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 6 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 2 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 2 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 15 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 12 points below the median Democratic senator (78).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
Scores 4 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 18 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 1 point above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 17 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
No mapped vote yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat, not because we have judged them.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 14 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Judicial & structural5 actions
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 8 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 15 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 6 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 18 scored actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
A stated position here points the other way from a recorded vote. Both are below, in date order — read the dates before drawing a conclusion, and each row says how it counted.
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 7 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 5 points above the median Democratic senator (78).
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Health access & coverage2 actions
Scores 7 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 6 points above the median Republican senator (24).
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.
Scores 3 points below the median Republican senator (24).
The 16 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural5 actions
Violence & safety1 action
A confirmation vote is scored on the record of the person confirmed, INCLUDING rulings and decisions made after the vote was cast. Why this is a rule and not a liberty: an appointment is the only vote whose entire purpose is the future conduct of another person. A senator confirming a judge to a lifetime seat is not expressing an opinion about a résumé; they are choosing who will decide cases for the next thirty years. Treating the later decisions as irrelevant would make the most consequential vote in the Senate the only one we score on nothing. THREE CONSTRAINTS, so this cannot become hindsight dressed as judgement: 1. IT APPLIES SYMMETRICALLY. A confirmed appointee whose later record is protective counts protective for the senators who confirmed them, by the same arithmetic. The rule is not a one-way ratchet and must never be applied only where the outcome is unfavourable. 2. IT APPLIES TO EVERY CONFIRMATION IN THE DIMENSION, not to selected ones. If we invoke a later ruling for one justice we invoke the equivalent record for all of them. 3. THE LATER EVENT MUST BE CITED like any other evidence — named, dated, linked. "Gorsuch later joined the Dobbs majority" is a checkable fact about a published opinion, not a characterisation. WHAT IT DOES NOT LICENSE: scoring a LEGISLATIVE vote by later events. A senator voting on a bill votes on text they can read. If the bill turns out worse than expected, that is a finding about the bill, not a fact they concealed. This rule is confined to appointments, where the future conduct of a person IS the subject of the vote.