OnTheIssuesLogo

Nancy Pelosi on Government Reform

Democratic Representative (CA-8)

 


We don't accept Trump dismissing oversight provisions

Q: I want to ask you, because when President Trump signed the bill, he brushed aside a key oversight provision with a signing statement.

PELOSI: It's ridiculous. The president wants to dismiss that. In doing so, that is one of the things that the American people are so upset about, that money is going to these big firms without any conditions. Let's not even go into whether he's allowed to do it. But we don't accept that. We don't accept that. We will have our oversight in the Congress. We have a panel that we've established. And I see that he said, we shouldn't be able to appoint the staff for our own panel? I mean, really.

Source: CNN 2020 "State of the Union" on Congress CA-12 election , Mar 29, 2020

Campaign finance reform to reduce role of money in politics

Q: Why do you think progress for women in Washington has been so slow?

A: We have to change the environment we're in. The environment I would like to see is one where the role of money is reduced and the level of civility is heightened. If you have less money and more civility, you will have more women. And that's one of the reasons--not the only reason, but to protect our democracy--that we are pushing for campaign finance reform to reduce the role of money in politics. I can guarantee you: if you lower money and increase civility, you will have many more women. And that's what we have to do: create our own environment. We've been operating in an environment that has not been friendly to the advancement of women, especially now that it's become so harsh and so money driven.

Source: Make A Woman President?, by Marianne Schnall, p.170-171 , Nov 5, 2013

Convert Congress from auction house to arena of ideas

We will achieve [Congressional reforms] with civility, with honesty, and with fiscal responsibility, because on the very first day, we will pass our reform package, “Honest Leadership, Open Government,” to make the most corrupt, closed Congress in history the most honest and open Congress in history. We will pass our civility package, which will again turn Congress into an arena of ideas instead of an auction house where legislation goes to the highest bidder.
Source: Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference , Jun 14, 2006

Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections.

Requires that to vote in federal elections, an individual present a government-issued, current, and valid photo identification. After 2010, that ID must require providing proof of US citizenship as a condition for issuance. An individual who does not present such an ID is permitted to cast a provisional ballot, and then present the required ID within 48 hours. Exempts from this requirement the absentee ballot of any eligible overseas military voter on active duty overseas.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The election system is the bedrock that our Republic is built on and its security and oversight is of paramount concern. Only US citizens have the right to vote in Federal elections, but our current system does not give State election officials the tools they need to ensure that this requirement is being met.

This bill is designed to increase participation by ensuring that each legitimate vote will be counted and not be diluted by fraud. There are many elections in this country every cycle that are decided by just a handful of votes. How can we be certain that these elections, without measures to certify the identity of voters, are not being decided by fraudulent votes?

Opponents support voting NO because:

There is something we can all agree on: only Americans get to vote, and they only get to vote once. But what we are talking about in this bill is disenfranchising many of those Americans. It is already a felony for a non-American to vote. We had hearings and what we found out was that the issue of illegal aliens voting basically does not occur.

The impact of this will disproportionately affect poor people and African Americans, because many are too poor to have a car and they do not have a license. We have no evidence there is a problem. We have ample evidence that this will disenfranchise many Americans. This is the measure to disenfranchise African Americans, Native Americans. It is wrong and we will not stand for it.

Reference: Federal Election Integrity Act; Bill H R 4844 ; vote number 2006-459 on Sep 20, 2006

Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees.

A "527 organization" is a political committee which spends money raised independently of any candidate's campaign committee, in support or opposition of a candidate or in support or opposition of an issue. Well-known examples include MoveOn.org (anti-Bush) and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (anti-Kerry). Voting YES would regulate 527s as normal political committees, which would greatly restrict their funding, and hence would shift power to candidate committees and party committees. The bill's opponents say:
  • This legislation singles out 527 organizations in an effort to undermine their fundraising and is a direct assault on free speech.
  • This bill would obstruct the efforts of grassroots organizations while doing nothing to address the culture of corruption in Congress.
  • H.R. 513 is an unbalanced measure that favors corporate trade associations over independent advocates. Corporate interests could continue spending unlimited and undisclosed dollars for political purposes while independent organizations would be subject to contribution limits and source restrictions.
  • H.R. 513 also removes all limits on national and state party spending for Congressional candidates in primary or general elections--an unmasked attack on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and clear evidence that the true intention in advancing H.R. 513 is not reform, but partisan advantage in political fundraising.
    Reference: Federal Election Campaign Act amendment "527 Reform Act"; Bill H.R.513 ; vote number 2006-088 on Apr 5, 2006

    Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers.

    The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act ("The Cheesburger Bill") would prevent civil liability actions against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims relating to a person's weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity. A YES vote would:
    Reference: The Cheesburger Bill; Bill HR 554 ; vote number 2005-533 on Oct 19, 2005

    Voted NO on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits.

    Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Amends the Federal judicial code to specify the calculation of contingent and other attorney's fees in proposed class action settlements that provide for the award of coupons to class members. Allows class members to refuse compliance with settlement agreements or consent decrees absent notice. Prohibits a Federal district court from approving:
    1. a proposed coupon settlement absent a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate;
    2. a proposed settlement involving payments to class counsel that would result in a net monetary loss to class members, absent a finding that the loss is substantially outweighed by nonmonetary benefits; or
    3. a proposed settlement that provides greater sums to some class members solely because they are closer geographically to the court.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley [R, IA]; Bill S.5 ; vote number 2005-038 on Feb 17, 2005

    Voted NO on restricting frivolous lawsuits.

    Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004: Amends the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to:
    1. require courts to impose sanctions on attorneys, law firms, or parties who file frivolous lawsuits (currently, sanctions are discretionary);
    2. disallow the withdrawal or correction of pleadings to avoid sanctions;
    3. require courts to award parties prevailing on motions reasonable expenses and attorney's fees, if warranted;
    4. authorize courts to impose sanctions that include reimbursement of a party's reasonable litigation costs in connection with frivolous lawsuits; and
    5. make the discovery phase of litigation subject to sanctions.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep Lamar Smith [R, TX-21]; Bill H.R.4571 ; vote number 2004-450 on Sep 14, 2004

    Voted YES on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.

    Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Overhaul: Vote to pass a bill that would ban soft money contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Shays, R-CT, and Meehan D-MA; Bill HR 2356 ; vote number 2002-34 on Feb 14, 2002

    Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties.

    Support a ban on soft money donations to national political parties but allow up to $10,000 in soft-money donations to state and local parties for voter registration and get-out-the vote activity.
    Bill HR 2356 ; vote number 2001-228 on Jul 12, 2001

    Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads.

    Campaign Finance Reform Act to ban "soft money" and impose restrictions on issue advocacy campaigning.
    Reference: Bill sponsored by Shays, R-CT; Bill HR 417 ; vote number 1999-422 on Sep 14, 1999

    Reject photo ID requirements for voting.

    Pelosi co-sponsored rejecting photo ID requirements for voting

    OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Expresses the sense of Congress that:

    1. a requirement that U.S. citizens obtain photo identification cards before being able to vote has not been shown to ensure ballot integrity and places an undue burden on citizens' legitimate voting rights; (
    2. the Department of Justice should challenge any state law that limits a citizen's ability to vote based on discriminatory photo identification requirements; and
    3. any effort to impose national photo identification requirements for voting should be rejected.

    SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: I am submitting a resolution to express the Senate's strong disapproval of recent efforts to disenfranchise Americans. Unfortunately, too many electoral reform efforts seem intent on limiting access to the ballot as opposed to expanding it. In the mid-20th century, the poll tax was the preferred means of disenfranchising large minority populations, specifically African Americans. Today, the poll tax is taking on a new form--a photo identification requirement for voters.

    According to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, such a requirement would "impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban." Nevertheless, a number of States, including Georgia, have recently passed laws mandating government-issued photo identification for voters at the polls. Nationwide, at least 12% of eligible drivers do not have a driver's license. And Georgia has made it difficult for rural and urban folks to obtain their voter photo identification.

    The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform acknowledges that there is "no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting."

    LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

    Source: Resolution on Voting (S.CON.RES.53) 05-SC53 on Sep 20, 2005

    No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote.

    Pelosi signed Voting Rights Amendment Act

    Congressional Summary:Amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to the requirement that a federal court retain jurisdiction for an appropriate period to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote. Expands the types of violations triggering the authority of a court to retain such jurisdiction to include certain violations of the Act as well as violations of any federal voting rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. [This bill would ban requiring photo IDs in order to vote].

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:Sen. Bob Dole (on related bill from 2007, whether to add an amendment allowing photo ID): I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

    Proponents support voting YES because:Sen. Dianne Feinstein (on related bill from 2007): If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote [for Dole's amendment] this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election].

    Source: H.R.3899/S.1945 14_H3899 on Jan 16, 2014

    Establish "My Voice Voucher" small campaign contributions.

    Pelosi co-sponsored Government By the People Act

    Congressional summary:

    Proponent's argument in favor (by Reps. Nancy Pelosi & John Sarbanes): Citizens United shook the foundation of our democracy: the principle that it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of the privileged few, that determine the outcome of our elections and the policies of our government. Most members of Congress would leap at the chance to fund their campaigns without having to turn to a familiar cast of big donors and entrenched interests. Today, that's virtually impossible. But we can and must break the grip of special interests on our politics: rally around H.R. 20.

    Opponent's argument against (The Examiner): The proposed legislation seeks to undo the Citizens United v. FEC ruling which has been a thorn in the side of progressives ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that political spending was "a form of protected speech under the First Amendment." Although the "Government by the People Act" innocently claims to want to get big money out of politics, the real goal is to smash the Tea Party. The fear that conservative groups would have access to funds typically granted to progressive groups and unions was too much to bear.

    Source: H.R.20 14-H0020 on Feb 5, 2014

    Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

    Pelosi co-sponsored H.R.20 & S.366

    Congressional Summary:<

    Supporters reasons for voting YEA:Rep. Sarbanes: Big money warps Congress' priorities and erodes the public's trust in government. This bold new legislation returns voice and power back to the American people:

    1. Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit.
    2. Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match.
    3. Prevent Super PACs from drowning out small donor-backed candidates.

    Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(Bill Moyers, Feb. 19, 2015): This citizen engagement strategy, particularly when used to court small donors, is not without its critics. Small donors, at least in the current system, often tend to be political ideologues. That trend leaves many asking: won't moving to small donors just empower extremists? Sarbanes counters, if Congress changes the political fundraising rules, they will also change the calculus for "the rational small donor who right now isn't going to give $25 because they've figured out that it's not going to matter." The prospect of a 6-to-1 match might very well impact how those less ideologically extreme potential donors think about political giving.

    Source: Government By the People Act 15_H020 on Jan 21, 2015

    No separate contribution limits for party activities.

    Pelosi co-sponsored H.R.154

    Congressional Summary: To repeal the Federal Election Campaign provisions which established separate contribution limits for contributions made to national parties to support Presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and recounts.

    Supporters reasons for voting YEA: Rep. KILMER. This legislation repeals the last-minute changes to campaign finance law that were tacked into a 1,600-page bill to fund the government. As a result of this legislation, the wealthiest donors can now each contribute more than $750,000 per year to a political party, more than seven times the previous cap. Worst of all, these changes were buried in a bill with no hearing and no public debate. This bill protects the interests of "We the People" and make sure that the wealthiest donors don't get another chance to flood our elections with even more money and to undermine our democracy.

    Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Washington Post article, Oct. 9, 2014): The FEC said that contributions to presidential convention committees will not count against the annual limit on donations to national parties--allowing wealthy donors to double their support for party operations. The FEC's move came in response to a rare joint request by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, which argued that they needed a new avenue to raise funds for the events after a federal law eliminated public funding for the conventions. But critics of the decision said the FEC created an end-run around federal contribution limits. Under the current rules, individuals can give up to $32,400 per year to a national party committee. Now, donors will be able to give an additional $32,400 each year to a separate committee set up to finance the quadrennial convention. That means that a single donor could give nearly $130,000 to support a party and its convention in a two-year election cycle.

    Source: Close the Floodgates Act 15_H154 on Jan 6, 2015

    Automatic voter registration for all citizens.

    Pelosi co-sponsored H.R.12 & S.1088

    Congressional Summary:

    Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (BrennanCenter.org): Too many Americans go to vote on Election Day only to find their names are not on the voter rolls--often, wrongly deleted. The US is on the verge of a new paradigm for registering voters: automatic, permanent registration of eligible voters, which would add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls.

    Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Gov. Christie's veto message on the "Democracy Act", Nov. 2015): Christie called a provision establishing automatic voter registration that requires New Jerseyan to opt out a "government-knows-best, backwards approach that would inconvenience citizens and waste government resources for no justifiable reason." Automatic voter registration would have added 1.6 million people to the state's voter rolls.

    Source: Voter Empowerment Act 15-H12 on Mar 19, 2015

    Holiday on election day; revamp for easier voting access.

    Pelosi voted YEA For the People Act of 2019

    Opposing argument from the Heritage Foundation, 2/1/2019: HR1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process. What HR1 Would Do:

    Legislative outcome: Passed House 234-193-5 on 3/8/19; received with no action in Senate thru 12/31/2019

    Source: Congressional vote 19-S949 on Jan 3, 2019

    Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access.

    Pelosi co-sponsored For the People Act

    S.1 and H.R.1: For the People Act: This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government:

    Sen. John Thune in OPPOSITION (9/22/21): This radical legislation would provide for a massive federal takeover of our electoral system, chill free speech, and turn the Federal Election Commission--the primary enforcer of election law in this country--into a partisan body. This radical legislation would undermine state voter ID laws and make it easier for those here illegally to vote.

    And, most of all, it would put Washington, not state governments, in charge of elections--for no reason at all. There is no systemic problem with state election laws. And state election officials do not need Washington bureaucrats dictating how many days of early voting they should offer, or how they should manage mail-in ballots.

    Biden Administration in SUPPORT (3/1/21): In the wake of an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country, this landmark legislation is urgently needed to protect the fundamental right to vote and the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen American democracy.

    Legislative Outcome: Passed House 220-210-2 on March 3, 2021 (rollcall #62); received in the Senate on March 11; no further Senate action during 2021.

    Source: S.1/H.R.1 21-HR1 on Jan 4, 2021

    Impeach President Trump for inciting insurrection.

    Pelosi voted YEA impeaching President Trump for inciting insurrection

    GovTrack.us summary of H.Res.24: Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump:

    The House impeached President Trump for the second time, charging him with incitement of insurrection. The impeachment resolution accused the President of inciting the violent riot that occurred on January 6, when his supporters invaded the United States Capitol injuring and killing Capitol Police and endangering the safety of members of Congress. It cites statements from President Trump to the rioters such as `if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore,` as well as persistent lies that he won the 2020 Presidential election.

    Legislative Outcome:

    Bill introduced Jan 11, 2021, with 217 co-sponsors; House rollcall vote #117 passed 232-197-4 on Jan. 13th (a YES vote in the House was to impeach President Trump for inciting insurrection); Senate rollcall vote #59 rejected 57-43-0 on Feb. 13th (2/3 required in Senate to pass; a YES vote in the Senate would have found President Trump guilty, but since he had already left office at that time, a guilty verdict would have barred Trump from running for President in the future)

    Source: Congressional vote 21-HR24 on Jan 11, 2021

    Statehood for Washington D.C.

    Pelosi voted YEA Washington D.C. Admission Act

    Legislative Summary: This bill provides for admission into the United States of the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, composed of most of the territory of the District of Columbia. The commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states. District territory excluded from the commonwealth shall be known as the Capital and shall be the seat of the federal government. The bill maintains the federal government's authority over military lands and specified other property. The bill provides for expedited consideration of a joint resolution repealing the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution [the current rule for D.C.].

    WETM 18-Elmira analysis: The House of Representatives passed a bill that would make Washington D.C. into a state. While Democrats say it's time to make D.C. a state, Republicans say the motivation is purely political.

    D.C. House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) introduced this bill and says district residents deserve full representation in Congress. "D.C. residents are taxed without representation and cannot consent to the laws under which they as American citizens must live," Norton said.

    While Democrats say this is about fairness, Republicans say this isn't about the people, it's about the politics. As a state, D.C. would likely add two new Democrats to the Senate.

    "This is about a Democrat power grab," Congressman Fred Keller (R-Penn.) said. Keller and Congressman James Comer (R-Ky.) say Democrats are forcing this issue through for one reason. "HR 51 is not really about voting representation. It's about Democrats consolidating their power in Washington," Comer said.

    Legislative Outcome: Passed House 216-208-6 on 4/22/21 (rollcall #132); introduced in Senate with 45 co-sponsors but no further Senate action during 2021.

    Source: Congressional vote 21-HR51 on Jan 4, 2021

    Restrict presidential powers and require tax returns.

    Pelosi voted YEA Protecting Our Democracy Act

    H.R.5314, "Protecting Our Democracy Act," addresses issues involving

    1. abuses of presidential power;
    2. checks and balances, accountability, and transparency; and
    3. election integrity and security.
    Specifically, regarding abuses of presidential power, the bill:

    Opinion by Rep. Brooks (R-AL-5) to vote NO, 12/9/21: Brooks voted "No" on H.R. 5314, a bill that perpetuates the now-debunked Russian Collusion claims that have resulted in indictments against the Democrat shills that fabricated it. Brooks said, "Trump Derangement Syndrome does not do justice to the word 'obsession'. HR 5314 is a list of grievances against President Trump that go back to 2016." Brooks concluded, "The American people would be better served if Socialist Democrats spent their time investigating Hunter Biden's shady art and influence-peddling deals that reek of corruption. The American people would be better served if the House considered border security legislation, welfare give-a-way program rollbacks, or bills aimed at addressing rising prices. Instead, we're wasting time on partisan, unnecessary legislation that's going nowhere in the Senate."

    Legislative Outcome: Passed House 220-208-6 on 12/9/2021, Roll no. 440); introduced in Senate on 12/13/21; no further Senate action during 2021.

    Source: Congressional vote 21-HR5314 on Sep 21, 2021

    2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Government Reform: Nancy Pelosi 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:
    Email
    Fax Number:
    202-225-8259
    Official Website
    Phone number:
    (202) 225-4965
    Search for...





    Page last updated: Oct 05, 2022; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org