Patrick Leahy on Government Reform Democratic Sr Senator (VT)

Citizens United decision strikes at core of our democracy

Justices should effectively check government overreaching

Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends federal criminal law to prohibit any person from knowingly deceiving any other person regarding:

1. the time, place, or manner of conducting any federal election; or
2. the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election.

SPONSOR`S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: Voter participation is fundamental to our democracy, and we must do all we can to encourage those who can to vote. I also hope voters go to the polls with accurate information about what is on the ballot, where they are supposed to vote, and what our Nation`s voting laws are.

It might surprise some of you to know, but even in this awesome age of technological advancement and easy access to information, there are folks who will stop at nothing to try to deceive people and keep them away from the polls. These deceptive practices all too often target and exploit vulnerable populations, like minorities, the disabled, or the poor.

Deceptive practices often rely on a few tried and true tricks. Voters are often warned that an unpaid parking ticket will lead to their arrest or that folks with family members who have been convicted of a crime are ineligible to vote. Of course, these warnings have no basis in fact, and they are made with one goal and one goal only: to keep Americans away from the polls.

The bill I am introducing today provides the clear statutory language and authority needed to get allegations of deceptive practices investigated. It establishes harsh penalties for those found to have perpetrated them. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation are real problems and demand real solutions like those offered in my bill.

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

Reject 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.

Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections.

Makes it unlawful for anyone before or during a federal election to knowingly communicate false election-related information about that election, with the intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote. Increases from one year to five years` imprisonment the criminal penalty for intimidation of voters.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Sen. OBAMA: This bill seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order to keep them away from the polls. It`s hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What`s worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor. We saw countless examples in this past election.

• Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning them in Spanish that, `if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration.`
• Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called `Virginia Elections Commission` informing them--falsely--that they were ineligible to vote.
• Or the voters who were told that they couldn`t vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a crime.

Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.

Congressional Summary:

• Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE Act:
• Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to add to the definition of `independent expenditure` an expenditure by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
• Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
• Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).
• Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

• On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that prohibiting corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional. This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, but these claims are incorrect. The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their funds for direct advocacy, including endorsing for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

  The result of Citizens United was that `Super PACs` spent millions on TV ads in the 2012 election, advocating both issues and candidates. The DISCLOSE Act attempts to reduce the negative effect of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of independent expenditures made by advocacy groups.

  Source: S3369/HR4010 12-S3369 on Jul 10, 2012

  No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote.

  Leahy sponsored 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]. I urge a `no` vote.

  Source: H.R.3899/S.1945 14_S1945 on Jan 16, 2014

  Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

  Leahy signed Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act

  Congressional Summary:Fair Elections Now Act--Amends 1971 FECA with respect to:

  • 500% matching payments to candidates for certain small dollar contributions;
  • a public debate requirement;
  • establishment of the Fair Elections Fund and of a Fair Elections Oversight Board;
  • remission to the Fair Elections Fund of unspent funds after an election civil penalties for violation of contribution and expenditure requirements;
  • Requires all designations, statements, and reports required to be filed under FECA to be filed directly with the FEC in electronic form accessible by computers.

  Statement of support for corresponding Senate bill: (Sunlight Foundation) Now we bring you the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill that should probably be the least controversial of all. S. 375 would simply require senators and Senate candidates to file their public campaign finance disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, the way House candidates and presidential candidates have been filing for over a decade. A version of the bill has been introduced during every congress starting in 2003 (!) yet it has been blocked repeatedly, a victim of political football.

  Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has introduced the most recent version, which would ensure that paper Senate campaign finance reports are a thing of the past. But even with 50 bipartisan cosponsors, the bill faces an uphill battle. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, has repeatedly prevented the bill from coming to the Senate floor. We won`t be deterred--as long as McConnell continues to block the bill, we`ll continue to highlight that his intransigence results in delayed disclosure of vital, public campaign finance information, not to mention wasting $500,000 in taxpayer money annually. Eventually, we`ll win.

  Source: S375/H.R.269 14_S375 on Feb 25, 2013

  Statehood for the District of Columbia.

  Leahy co-sponsored H.R.317

  Congressional Summary: Sets forth procedures for admission into the United States of the state of New Columbia.

  • Requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit to the voters propositions for statehood and adoption of a State Constitution, and issue a proclamation for the first elections to Congress of two Senators and one Representative of New Columbia.
  • Requires the President to issue a proclamation announcing the results and admitting New Columbia into the Union.
  • Provides for conversion of District government offices to state offices.

  Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (DCist.com, Sept. 2014): The Argument Against: Congress does not have the authority to grant statehood to D.C.; the 23rd amendment, which gave D.C. three electoral votes, would have to be repealed before statehood was granted. Washington is a wholly urban, one-industry town, dependent on the federal government far in excess of any other state. Moreover, with Congress no longer having authority over New Columbia but dependent on it, New Columbia could exert influence on the federal government far in excess of any other state.

  Supporters reasons for voting YEA: [Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC; the District of Columbia has one representative to Congress and no Senators; Rep. Holmes can introduce bills but her vote does not count]: This 51st state would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory or enclave that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. Those would remain under federal jurisdiction. The New Columbia Admission Act was the first bill I introduced in 1991. Statehood is the only alternative for the citizens of the District of Columbia. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States.

  Source: New Columbia Admission Act 15_H317 on Jan 13, 2015

  Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

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

  Congressional Summary:<

  • Allow a refundable tax credit of 50% of cash contributions to congressional House campaigns, to be known as `My Voice Federal` contributions.
  • Select three states to operate a voucher pilot program.
  • Provide, upon request, a `My Voice Voucher` worth $50.
  • Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.
  • Permits an individual to revoke a My Voice Voucher within two days after submitting it to a candidate.
  • Establishes the Freedom From Influence Fund in the Treasury [for 6-to-1 matching funds for the vouchers].
  • Allows taxpayers to designate overpayments of tax for contribution to the Freedom From Influence Fund.

  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_S366 on Feb 4, 2015

  Sponsored bill for election holiday & easier voting access.

  Leahy co-sponsored For the People Act of 2019
  • This bill expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
  • The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
  • The bill also sets forth provisions for sharing intelligence information with state election officials, and supporting states in securing their election systems, and establishing the National Commission to Protect U.S. Democratic Institutions.
  • This bill addresses campaign spending, by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; and expanding disclosure rules.
  • This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system [with] federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.
  • The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

  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:

  • Seize the authority of states to regulate the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
  • Make it easier to commit fraud at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration.
  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV.
  • Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.

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

  Source: H.R.1 &S.949 19-S949 on Jan 3, 2019

  Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting.

  Leahy co-sponsored prohibiting 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting

  Rep. CONYERS: `Since the late 1950`s, the pernicious practice of `voter caging` has been used to discourage or prevent eligible voters from casting their vote. Recent elections have shown that caging tactics are not outdated, and in fact, have disenfranchised voters in recent midterm and Presidential elections. While caging efforts have traditionally been directed at minority communities, all voters are susceptible to these attempts at voter intimidation and suppression.

  `The undemocratic practice of voter caging involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, the voter`s name is placed on a `caging list.` These caging lists are then used to challenge a voter`s registration or eligibility.

  `In my home State of Michigan, I have seen firsthand how caging efforts are used to harass, bully, and ultimately disenfranchise, eligible voters. With a Michigan lawmaker advocating `suppress the Detroit vote,` I cannot help but think that is synonymous with `suppress the Black vote` as Detroit is 83% African American. These voter suppression campaigns always seem to target our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, low-income people, homeless people, and college students.

  `Caging tactics meant to suppress the vote do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity.`

  S.2305: PROHIBITION ON VOTER CAGING: No State or local election official shall prevent an individual from registering or voting in any election for Federal office, or challenge an individual`s registration status or eligibility to vote, if the sole basis for such decision or challenge is evidence consisting of a voter caging document or voter caging list; or an unverified match list. Source: Caging Prohibition Act (S.2305/H.R.5038) 2007-S2305 on Nov 5, 2007

  Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access.

  Leahy 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:

  • The bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting).
  • It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.
  • The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.
  • The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

  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

  Remove President Trump from office for inciting insurrection.

  Leahy voted YEA removing President Trump from office 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-HR24S on Jan 11, 2021

  Sponsored bill for statehood for Washington D.C.

  Leahy co-sponsored 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: H.R.51/S.51 21-HR51 on Jan 4, 2021

  Voted YES on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

  Leahy voted YEA Impeachment of President Trump

  RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.

  ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that included
  1. Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
  2. With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought.
  3. Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump`s previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.
  ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:
  1. Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
  2. defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
  3. and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump`s previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections. Source: Congressional vote ImpeachK on Dec 18, 2019

  Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Patrick Leahy. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Patrick Leahy. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Patrick Leahy. Click here for a summary of Patrick Leahy's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other VT politicians. Click here for issue statements from VT primary archives. Click here for issue statements from VT secondary archives.
  Other candidates on Government Reform:		Patrick Leahy on other issues:
  VT Gubernatorial: Brenda Siegel Esther Charlestin Peter Duval Phil Scott Scott Milne VT Senatorial: Bernie Sanders Gerald Malloy Peter Welch VT politicians VT Archives	Senate races 2024: AZ: Kyrsten Sinema(I,incumbent) vs.Ruben Gallego(D) vs.Kari Lake(R) vs.Mark Lamb(R) CA: Laphonza Butler(D,retiring) vs.Adam Schiff(D nominee) vs.Steve Garvey(R nominee) vs.Gail Lightfoot(L) vs.Barbara Lee(D, lost primary) vs.Katie Porter(D, lost primary) CT: Chris Murphy(D,incumbent) vs.John Flynn(R) vs.Robert Hyde(R) DE: Tom Carper(D,retiring) vs.Eric Hansen(R) vs.Michael Katz(I) vs.Lisa Blunt Rochester(D) FL: Rick Scott(R,incumbent) vs.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D) HI: Mazie Hirono(D,incumbent) vs.Bob McDermott(R) IN: Mike Braun(R,retiring) vs.Jim Banks(R nominee) vs.Valerie McCray(D nominee) vs.Marc Carmichael(D, lost primary) MA: Elizabeth Warren(D,incumbent) vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(R) vs.John Deaton(R) MD: Ben Cardin(D,retiring) vs.Larry Hogan(R) vs.Robin Ficker(R) vs.Angela Alsobrooks(D) vs.David Trone(D) ME: Angus King(I,incumbent) vs.Demi Kouzounas(R) vs.David Costello(D) MI: Debbie Stabenow(D,retiring) vs.Leslie Love(D) vs.Peter Meijer(R) vs.James Craig(R) vs.Mike Rogers(R) vs.Elissa Slotkin(D) MN: Amy Klobuchar(DFL,incumbent) vs.Royce White(R) vs.Steve Carlson(DFL) MO: Josh Hawley(R,incumbent) vs.Karla May(D) vs.Lucas Kunce(D) MS: Roger Wicker(R,incumbent) vs.Dan Eubanks(R) vs.Ty Pinkins(D) MT: Jon Tester(D,incumbent) vs.Tim Sheehy(R) vs.Brad Johnson(R,lost primary) ND: Kevin Cramer(R,incumbent) vs.Katrina Christiansen(D)	NE: Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent,2-year seat) vs.Preston Love(D) Deb Fischer(D,incumbent,6-year seat) vs.Dan Osborn(I) NJ: Bob Menendez(I,incumbent) vs.Andy Kim(D) vs.Curtis Bashaw(R) vs.Tammy Murphy(D,withdrew) NM: Martin Heinrich(D,incumbent) vs.Nella Domenici(R) NV: Jacky Rosen(D,incumbent) vs.Jim Marchant (R) vs.Sam Brown(R) NY: Kirsten Gillibrand(D,incumbent) vs.Mike Sapraicone(R) vs.Josh Eisen(R,withdrew May 1) OH: Sherrod Brown(D,incumbent) vs.Bernie Moreno(R nominee) vs.Frank LaRose(R, lost primary) vs.Matt Dolan(R, lost primary) PA: Bob Casey(D,incumbent) vs.David McCormick(R) RI: Sheldon Whitehouse(D,incumbent) vs.Patricia Morgan(R) vs.Allen Waters(R,withdrew) TN: Marsha Blackburn(R,incumbent) vs.Gloria Johnson(D) vs.Marquita Bradshaw(D) TX: Ted Cruz(R,incumbent) vs.Colin Allred(D) vs.Roland Gutierrez(D,lost primary) vs.Carl Sherman(D,lost primary) UT: Mitt Romney(R,retiring) vs.John Curtis(R) vs.Trent Staggs(R) vs.Brad Wilson(R) vs.Caroline Gleich(D) VA: Tim Kaine(D,incumbent) vs.Scott Parkinson(R) VT: Bernie Sanders(I,incumbent) vs.Gerald Malloy(R) WA: Maria Cantwell(D,incumbent) vs.Raul Garcia(R) WI: Tammy Baldwin(D,incumbent) vs.Eric Hovde(R) vs.Phil Anderson(L) WV: Joe Manchin III(D,retiring) vs.Don Blankenship(D) vs.Jim Justice(R) vs.Alex Mooney(R) vs.Glenn Elliott(D) WY: John Barrasso(R,incumbent) vs.Reid Rasner(R) vs.Scott Morrow(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 Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
  [Title9]

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Sep 08, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org