We grade every member of Congress on how they voted on women and families. We wrote the rules first. We decided which votes count, and how much, before we scored anyone. Open any card to see every vote and the official record behind it.
This is still being built. If a member has too few votes on our list, we show them as not graded yet. We never give a bad grade just to fill a gap.
What the grade measures
Not whether someone is liberal or conservative. Not how hard they work, or whether we like them. Just one question: when a recorded vote touched one of these subjects, how did they vote?
A vote that protects women and families counts up. A vote that takes protection away counts down. Some subjects count more than others, and we publish how much. The result is a score from 0 to 100, then a letter.
It is not a curve. We set these cutoffs before we scored anyone, so the grades fall wherever the votes put them. Every vote behind every letter is on the member’s card, with a link to the official record. Check it.
To get a grade, a member needs votes in at least 5 of our 8 subjects. With fewer, we show the record as too thin to grade. Most of these members are new and have not yet faced the votes on our list.
Every card is open to everyone. All 539 members, every vote we scored, and a link to the official record for each one. No signup, nothing held back.
What the letter means
A score from 0 to 100, then a letter. It is not a curve: the cutoffs are fixed, and the grades fall wherever the votes put them.
The eight subjects, and what each is worth
Every dimension has at least one scored vote behind it.
Read this before you read the grades
So far, the votes split almost exactly by party. No Republican scored above 61. No Democrat scored below 63. The two groups do not overlap.
That is what the votes show, not something we built in. We wrote the rules before we scored anyone, and every vote is on the card with a link to the official record. Check it.
Our votes run from 2013 to 2026, and 28% come from 2021–22. That is our to-do list, not our judgement. It is the order we happened to add bills, not a claim that those years matter more. It is also why new members show so little: we have not yet added the votes they took part in.
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal13 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 5 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 24 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety6 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety6 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 23 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety8 actions
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 19 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 5 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 7 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 26 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 18 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 2 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety11 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
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 23 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 22 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety6 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 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 & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family4 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 & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 18 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 19 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 26 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 18 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 19 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 36 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety11 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
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 11 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 22 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 38 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal13 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 & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety11 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
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 12 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 38 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal14 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 & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 13 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 37 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal13 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 & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 36 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety11 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 22 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety6 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 3 votes behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety6 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 6 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 5 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 15 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 38 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal14 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 & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 15 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 23 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 24 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 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 & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety6 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 23 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 36 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal12 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 & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 19 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 10 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
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
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 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 & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 19 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 23 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 10 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
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
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 26 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 7 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 1 vote behind this grade, by subject
Children & family1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 36 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety11 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
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 26 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 33 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family5 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety9 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 22 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal4 actions
Children & family4 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 & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity2 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 4 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Full record and shareable card →
The 24 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity3 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural3 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 9 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal2 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 35 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity6 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 39 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family4 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety10 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity6 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity6 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 20 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 17 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 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 & structural4 actions
Violence & safety5 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
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity5 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 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 & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity6 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage7 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 21 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural3 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal12 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 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 & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal5 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity6 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal11 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 25 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 32 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal10 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 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
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety5 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 10 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
No vote on our list yet. This member is on the board because they hold a seat. We have not judged them.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 24 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights1 action
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 14 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal3 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity3 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 34 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal14 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural2 actions
Violence & safety4 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
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 31 votes and actions behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety6 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
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 27 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal6 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage4 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety7 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity6 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal7 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 36 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal12 actions
Children & family3 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Violence & safety8 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity5 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 28 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 8 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal1 action
Health access & coverage2 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 actions
Full record and shareable card →
The 30 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal9 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 24 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family2 actions
Health access & coverage3 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural1 action
Violence & safety3 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Full record and shareable card →
The 29 votes behind this grade, by subject
Reproductive & maternal8 actions
Children & family1 action
Health access & coverage5 actions
Equity & rights2 actions
Judicial & structural4 actions
Violence & safety4 actions
Immigration & access to care1 action
Data & science integrity4 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.
Get The Dispatch The Labora Collective’s newsletter, free.