Brad Sherman on Civil Rights Democratic Representative (CA-27)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :
1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. CASTOR: The march towards equality under the law for all of our citizens has sometimes been slow, but it has been steady. Over time, Congress has outlawed discrimination in the workplace, based upon a person's race, gender, age, national origin, religion and disability, because when it comes to employment, these decisions are rightly based upon a person's qualifications and job performance. This legislation that outlaws job discrimination based upon sexual orientation was first introduced over 30 years ago. A broad coalition of businesses and community organizations strongly support this landmark civil rights legislation, including the Human Rights Campaign; the Anti-Defamation League; and the NAACP.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. HASTINGS: Federal law bans job discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. In addition, 19 States have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace. However, I do not think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each and every workplace operates. A number of States have enacted State laws in this area. That is their right. Many businesses have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is appropriate as well. This bill as written would expand Federal law into a realm where PERCEPTION would be a measure under discrimination law [which I consider inappropriate].

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.

Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. We have amended the Constitution only 27 times. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them. Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.

From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry. I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past.

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.

• Assigning three judges to hear individuals' petitions concerning improper requests by the FBI for library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, and other records
• Reporting every year the number of library records orders that are granted, modified, or denied
• Allows Internet service providers to disclose their subscribers information and the contents of their communications to a government entity, if they believe there is “immediate danger of death or serious physical injury”
• Requires that any court that allows a “roving wiretap” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must describe in great detail the intended target whose identity is not known
• Allows individuals and businesses to seek legal counsel if they have received a National Security Letter from the FBI requiring them to disclose financial information and records

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC.

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.

Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender.

Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Summary: States that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Rated 73% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Our ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

• 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
• 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
• 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)

The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.

Rated 94% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:

• 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
• 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked over the years to support and promote our country's civil rights agenda. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels. From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many negative aspects of American society.

ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.

Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Prohibits related retaliation.

Makes this Act inapplicable to:
1. religious organizations; and
2. the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.

Constitutional Amendment for women's equal rights.

JOINT RESOLUTION: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Constitutional Amendment: Prohibits denying or abridging equality of rights under the law by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the several States:
1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com and OnTheIssues.org]:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress, but failed to gain ratification before its June 30, 1982 deadline. This new proposed amendment is identical in wording to the original 1972 proposed amendment. It was proposed in Congress in every session from 1923 through 1970 prior to passing in 1972; and has been re-introduced in Congress in every session since 1982 after its failure at ratification. The current version removes the Congressionally imposed deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, so that if the bill passes Congress, states have no deadline as they did in 1982.

Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools.

Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011:
• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.
• Deems a state's receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.

Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.

Congressional Summary:

• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct made unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.

  Opponent's argument against bill:(by Cato Institute reported on Fox News): A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to "homosexual indoctrination" in the nation's classrooms, critics say.

  "The real danger is how this will be interpreted," said the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. "The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal. That's a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this--not because they're 'haters' but because you're now trying to balance different rights."

  Proponent's argument for bill: (Rep. Jared POLIS, House sponsor): "Hatred has no place in the classroom. Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence. This bill will protect the freedoms of our students and enshrine the values of equality and opportunity in the classroom."

  Source: H.R.1652 / S.1088 13-H1652 on Jul 8, 2013

  Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender.

  Sherman co-sponsored Paycheck Fairness Act
  Congress finds the following:
  1. Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
  2. Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
  3. The existence of such pay disparities depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet; and undermines women's retirement security.
  4. Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. These barriers have resulted because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended.
  5. The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
  6. The Department of Labor is responsible for investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
  7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act.
  8. With a stronger commitment [to enforcement], increased information on wage data and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
  9. Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
  Source: S.84&H.R.377 13-HR0377 on Jan 23, 2013

  Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class.

  Sherman voted YEA H.Amdt. 1128 to H.R. 5055

  Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama's 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women's lockers, showers, and bathrooms.

  Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president's orders are not exempt from them.

  ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016): We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It's no different today.

  Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.

  Legislative outcome: Amendment passed by the House 223-195-15 4/26/16; overall bill H.R.5055 failed 112-305-16 on 5/26/2016

  Source: Congressional vote 16-H5055 on May 25, 2016

  Let states recognize same sex marriage.

  Sherman signed Respect for Marriage Act

  Congressional Summary: Amends the Defense of Marriage Act to let states recognize same sex marriage. Defines "marriage" to provide that an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the state or country where the marriage was entered into. Removes the definition of "spouse" (currently, a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife).

  Wikipedia and GLAAD history: In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) struck down the act's provisions disallowing same-sex marriages to be performed under federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court case did not challenge Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 declares that all states have the right to deny recognition of the marriage of same sex couples that originated in states where they are legally recognized.

  Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (3/20/2013): Americans respect marriage, not only as a crucial institution of civil society but the fundamental building block of all human civilization. This is why 41 states and the federal government affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. The government isn't in the business of affirming our loves. Rather it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. And contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, and choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship. What's at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages--and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.

  Legislative outcome: Died in Committee (never came to a vote).

  Source: S.29 & H.197 17-H0197 on Jan 6, 2015

  Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

  Sherman co-sponsored providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees

  Sen. LIEBERMAN: This legislation would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.

  Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

  The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.

  I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.

  SUMMARY: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007

  Employees and their domestic partners will have the same benefits as married employees and their spouses under--
  • Employee health benefits
  • Retirement and disability plans
  • Family, medical, and emergency leave
  • Group life insurance
  • Long-term care insurance
  • Compensation for work injuries
  • Death, disability, and similar benefits
  • Relocation, travel, and related expenses.
  Source: Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S.2521/H.R.4838) 2007-S2521 on Dec 19, 2007

  Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.

  Sherman co-sponsored re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment
  A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women, which shall be part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States:
  • Section 1.Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
  • Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  • Section 3.This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.
  Sen. KENNEDY. "It's a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on today, since discrimination still continues in many ways.

  "Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act & the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. More than 60% of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

  "A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment.

  "We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But the women of America deserve no less."

  Source: Equal Rights Amendment (S.J.RES.10/H.J.RES.40) 2007-SJR10 on Mar 29, 2007

  Give domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees.

  Sherman signed Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
  A federal employee who has a same-sex domestic partner and the domestic partner of the employee shall be entitled to benefits available to, and shall be subject to obligations imposed upon, a married employee and the spouse of the employee. In order to obtain benefits and assume obligations under this Act, an employee shall file an affidavit of eligibility certifying that the employee and the domestic partner of the employee:
  1. are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;
  2. have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement;
  3. are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract;
  4. share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations
  5. are not married to or domestic partners with anyone else;
  6. are same sex domestic partners, and not related in a way that, if the two were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; and
  7. understand that willful falsification of information within the affidavit may lead to disciplinary action and the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification and may constitute a criminal violation.
     An employee or domestic partner of an employee who obtains benefits under this Act shall file a statement of dissolution of the domestic partnership not later than 30 days after the death of the employee or the domestic partner or the date of dissolution of the domestic partnership. Source: H.R.2517 2009-H2517 on May 20, 2009

     Sponsored bill for ratifying Equal Rights Amendment.

     Sherman co-sponsored Removing deadline for ERA ratification

     H.J.Res.17: Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment: This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the ERA, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

     Opinion to vote YES (Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL-7): The ERA was first proposed in 1923, shortly after women gained the right to vote. [The original] 1979 deadline was later extended before it expired. By the end of 1982, 35 of the 38 required state legislatures had voted to ratify the ERA. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and, in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state required to ratify it. If passed in the Senate, H.J. Res. 79 would remove the arbitrary 1982 deadline.

     Opinion to vote NO (Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-1): H. J. Res 17 would retroactively remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Regardless of your thoughts on the ERA, the deadline for the states to ratify the amendment expired four decades ago. By passing this resolution, House Democrats are virtue signaling and trying to take a shortcut around what is required in our constitutional amendment process. Those who want to pass an ERA will need to start this process from the beginning. Today's vote mocks the intentionally high bar set by our Founders to make changes to our precious Constitution.

     Legislative Outcome: Passed House 222-204-4 on 03/17/2021; received in the Senate and read on 3/23. [OnTheIssues notes on the duration for ratification that the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress in 1789 and was ratified by 3/4 of the States and became law in 1992, a ratification period of 202 years].

     Source: H.J.Res.17 21-HJR17 on Jan 21, 2021

     Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights. Click here for HouseMatch answers by Brad Sherman. Click here for a summary of Brad Sherman's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of Brad Sherman's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for Brad Sherman. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Brad Sherman. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Brad Sherman. Click here for other CA politicians. Click here for CA primary archives. Click here for CA secondary archives.
     2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Civil Rights:			Brad Sherman on other issues:
     CA Gubernatorial: Antonio Villaraigosa Brian Dahle Caitlyn Jenner Carly Fiorina David Hadley Delaine Eastin Doug Ose Eric Garcetti Eric Swalwell Gavin Newsom Hilda Solis Jerry Brown Jerry Sanders John Chiang John Cox Kamala Harris Kevin Faulconer Kevin Paffrath Larry Elder Laura Smith Neel Kashkari Rob Bonta Travis Allen Xavier Becerra CA Senatorial: Dianne Feinstein Duf Sundheim Greg Brannon Kamala Harris Kevin de Leon Loretta Sanchez Michael Eisen Rocky Chavez Tom Del Beccaro	Open Seats / Turnovers 2022: AL-5: Mo Brooks (R) running for AL Senator CA-37: Karen Bass (D) running for mayor of Los Angeles FL-10: Val Demings (D) running for FL Senator FL-13: Charlie Crist (D) running for FL governor HI-2: Kai Kahele (D) running for MD governor MD-4: Anthony G. Brown (D) running for attorney general of Maryland MO-4: Vicky Hartzler (R) running for MO Senator MO-7: Billy Long (R) running for MO Senator NY-1: Lee Zeldin (R) running for NY governor NY-3: Thomas Suozzi (D) running for NY governor NC-8: Ted Budd (R) running for NC Senator NC-11: Madison Cawthorn (R) Incumbent lost renomination OH-13: Tim Ryan (D) running for OH Senator OK-2: Markwayne Mullin (R) running for OK Senator OR-5: Kurt Schrader (D) Incumbent lost renomination PA-17: Conor Lamb (D) running for PA Senator SC-7: Tom Rice (R) Incumbent lost renomination TX-1: Louie Gohmert (R) running for attorney general of Texas VT-0: Peter Welch (D) running for VT Senator Special Elections 2021: LA-2: Troy Carter (R, April 2021) LA-5: Julia Letlow (R, March 2021) NM-1: Melanie Stansbury (D, June 2021) OH-11: Shontel Brown (D, Nov. 2021) OH-15: Mike Carey (R, Nov. 2021) TX-6: Jake Ellzey (R, July 2021)	Hot Races 2022: CA-27: Christy Smith (D) vs. Mike Garcia (R) FL 27: Annette Taddeo (D) vs. Maria Elvira Salazar (R) GA-7: Carolyn Bourdeaux (D) lost redistricting race to Lucy McBath (D) GA-10: Vernon Jones(R) vs. Paul Broun (R,lost May 24 primary) to replace Jody Hice (R) running for Secretary of GA ME-2: Bruce Poliquin (R) rematch against Jared Golden (D) MI-10: John James (R) - running for newly redistricted seat MI-11: Andy Levin (D) redistricted to face Haley Stevens (D) MT 1: Ryan Zinke (R) - running for newly created seat MT-2: Al Olszewski(R) vs. Sam Rankin(Libertarian) vs. Matt Rosendale(R) NJ-7: Thomas Kean Jr. (R) challenging Tom Malinowski (R) NY-10: Bill de Blasio (D) challenging Mondaire Jones (D) NY-11: Max Rose (D) challenging Nicole Malliotakis (R) NY 12: Carolyn Maloney (D) redistricted to face Jerry Nadler (D) RI-2: Seth Magaziner (D) vs. Allan Fung (R) RI-1: Allen Waters (R) vs. David Cicilline (D) TX-34: Mayra Flores (R) - Elected SPEL June 2022; general election Nov. 2022 against Vicente Gonzalez (D) WA-4: Brad Klippert (R) challenging Dan Newhouse (R) WV-2: David McKinley lost a redistricting race to fellow incumbent Alex Mooney Special Elections 2022: AK-0: Sarah Palin (R) vs. Al Gross (Independent) CA-22: Connie Conway (R) replaced Devin Nunes on June 7. FL-20: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D) replaced Alcee Hastings on Jan. 11. MN-1: vacancy left by Jim Hagedorn (R), deceased Feb. 17; SPEL on August 9. NE-1: Jeffrey Fortenberry (R) Resigned on March 31, after being convicted; Mike Flood (R) in SPEL on June 28. NY-19: Marc Molinaro (R) running for SPEL Aug. 23 for seat vacated by Antonio Delgado (D), now Lt.Gov. TX-34: Mayra Flores (R) SPEL June 14 for seat vacated by Filemon Vela Jr. (D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile CA politicians Contact info: Fax Number: 202-225-5879 Mailing Address: Rayburn HOB 2242, Washington, DC 20515 Phone number: (202) 225-5911

     
     
     
     
     
     Page last updated: Oct 01, 2022; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org