Lisa Blunt Rochester headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Delaware
Born
February 10, 1962
Age 64
Phone
(202) 224-2441
Office
513 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Delaware

Lisa Blunt Rochester

Lisa LaTrelle Blunt Rochester is an American politician serving since 2025 as the junior United States senator from Delaware. From 2017 to 2025, she served as the U.S. representative for Delaware's at-large congressional district. A member of the Democratic Party, she is the first woman and first African American to represent Delaware in both chambers of Congress.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 783
Yes27%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting0%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Lisa Blunt Rochester headshot
Lisa Blunt Rochester
U.S. SenatorDemocratDelaware
SoupScore
Lisa's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 33 sponsored · 183 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Happy Delaware Grown Week to all the farmers and producers who support our state! Choosing First State produce opens doors to community and sustainability with fresh, nutritious, delicious food— today is a great day to find a farmer’s market near you!
This week, Republicans took another middle-of-the-night step towards cutting Medicaid and SNAP and taking away thousands of jobs. All to give the super-rich another handout. Now, we fight to convince Senate Republicans to reject this bad deal.
I went to the floor today to share some of the stories I’ve heard from Delawareans whose lives depend on Medicaid. I want my Republican colleagues to hear their names and their stories so they understand the tradeoffs they’re making to support more tax cuts for the wealthy.
According to Sec. Zeldin, his agency had more than 1,500 "wins" to highlight in their first 100 days. So why do so many of them sound so similar? The reality is, he’s overseen cuts to rules and programs that keep us safe and healthy. Far from an accomplishment in my book.
There it is. Working people lose - not just income, but things like Medicaid, Social Security, clean water, access to the internet, and assistance starting a small business - all so the rich can get richer. This is a bad deal, and I refuse to support it.
A ripped headline reads "Wealthy gain, low-income people lose from GOP megabill, analysis finds. The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is already fueling Democratic accusations that the legislation is a giveaway to the rich.

The headline is superimposed over a photo of Speaker Mike Johnson (left) and President Donald Trump (right) standing in front of a statue and columns in the U.S. Capitol.
Let me be Blunt: this administration doesn’t know what’s going on at the CDC, and all our communities are at risk. We’ve been asking for months: who's really leading our public health response? We still haven’t heard back, so I’m demanding answers. Let’s see what we get.
Republicans know their big bad budget’s major cuts to vital programs and new giveaways for billionaires are outrageous and unpopular. That’s why they’re holding votes at 11PM and hearings at 1AM – they hope you’re not paying attention.
71 years ago, Brown v. Board of Education made clear what we've always known to be true: separate is NOT equal. Today, in the face of attempts to erase our history, we celebrate the strength of the students, parents, and judges who stood up for what was right and won.
In Energy & Commerce, House Republicans voted to gut Medicaid. In the Agriculture Committee, they voted to slash SNAP. In Ways & Means, they voted to use the money they ‘saved’ with those cuts to give the ultra-rich another tax break. They should have to answer for it.
134 years ago today, @delstateuniv.bsky.social was founded—a crown jewel of Delaware and one of the best HBCUs in the country. Today we reflect on the generations of students whose path to success ran through DSU and celebrate the future of this great institution.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
783 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (54-46)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (27-73)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14H.R. 1968 (119th)End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-38, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-14S. 331 (119th)Final passageNOYESBill Passed (84-16)
2025-03-14Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-40)
2025-03-14End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-39)
2025-03-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-03-13S. 331 (119th)End debateNOYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-15, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-45)
2025-03-13Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-43)
2025-03-13End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (57-41)
2025-03-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-03-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-03-12Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-03-12End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-03-11Confirm nomineeNOYESNomination Confirmed (78-19)
2025-03-11End debateNOYESCloture Motion Agreed to (76-20)
2025-03-11Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-46)
2025-03-11End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-03-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (67-32)
2025-03-06S. 331 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-12, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-06End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (66-30)
2025-03-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-43)
2025-03-06End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-43)
2025-03-05S.J. Res. 28 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (51-47)
2025-03-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-46)
2025-03-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-03-04S.J. Res. 28 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47)
2025-03-04S.J. Res. 3 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (70-27)
2025-03-04S.J. Res. 3 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28)
2025-03-03S. 9 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-03-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-02-27End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-02-27H.J. Res. 35 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-47)
2025-02-26S.J. Res. 12 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-26S.J. Res. 10 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Defeated (47-52)
2025-02-26Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-43)
2025-02-25Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47)
2025-02-25S.J. Res. 11 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (54-44)
2025-02-25S.J. Res. 11 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42)
2025-02-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-28)
2025-02-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (54-43)
2025-02-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (66-28)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (49-51)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-21S. Con. Res. 7 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (47-53)

Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.

← PrevPage 14 / 16Next →