I champion Clean Slate legislation because I know how hard it can be for people to get back on their feet after time in the system.
So proud of the way our state is working to make second chances possible for Delawareans.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Delaware
Lisa Blunt Rochester
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 885
Yes28%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Lisa Blunt Rochester
U.S. SenatorDemocratDelaware
SoupScore
Lisa's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 39 sponsored · 209 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
After seeing a dad put back grapes because they were too expensive, I was inspired to try and make things better for families across Delaware.
That's what government exists to do: make life easier - not harder - for people. This is a sign Trump's leadership is failing us.
Good.
We should all recognize how dangerous it is that this administration is letting hate threaten our safety and military readiness.
My full statement:
www.bluntrochester.senate.gov/news/in-the-...
Pulte has absolutely no national security or intelligence experience, yet he's been entrusted with overseeing our national security.
Let’s hope Mr. Pulte has more success in his new role than he has at addressing housing affordability.
This morning, I called out this administration’s cuts to our maritime industry and research efforts. Hours later, they announced another hit.
These never-ending cuts threaten the safety of our coastal communities and their economies.
Reposted bySenator Lisa Blunt Rochester
Donald Trump's war with Iran has cost American households $100 billion — so far.
That’s nearly $750 per household.
As our nation marked its 200th anniversary, Black Americans were finally beginning to feel the impacts of the Voting Rights Act.
50 years later, Republicans across the country are trying to take those rights away.
Happy Pride Month, Delaware!
This month is a reminder that everyone is welcome - and loved - here.
Maternal healthcare is improving but we must do more.
That's why, this month, I introduced FOUR bills to improve healthcare access for our nation’s moms.
This decision is a small win for our families and our tax dollars.
The President may keep trying to reward his allies with illegal handouts, but know that we'll keep fighting to hold him accountable.
Trump promised lower costs, but every action he's taken has made life more expensive for you and your family.
This administration is more focused on putting Trump's face on dollar bills than making sure our working families' bills are paid.
Breaking: The Trump administration is working to create a $250 bill with Trump’s face on it, even though it is a direct violation of federal law to have currency with a living person on it.
They fired the federal official who was resisting their demands.
www.washingtonpost.com/investigatio...
Being the 'first state' in foreclosure rates is a clear sign our housing system is desperately in need of repair.
It’s time to pass the ROAD to Housing Act so all families can find - and keep - safe place to call home.
Exactly. This administration is spending your tax dollars to entertain and support the richest among us while everyone else struggles to get by.
It's completely backwards— we should be helping out those who need it most, not millionaire and billionaire friends of the president.
"I don't know what comes next."
Brianna's story will sound familiar to countless parents in DE and across the country. It's a moving reminder of who suffers when Republicans play games with your health care.
Head to my YouTube Channel to hear her tell her story—it's worth it.
No one should need to skip prescriptions or doctor's visits just to stay afloat.
This data confirms what we already know – families are hurting. But when folks need help the most, Trump remains focused on his own selfish agenda.
This is outrageous.
The nation's top law enforcement official (who used to be Trump's defense lawyer) says that taxpayer money going to Jan. 6 insurrectionists is just par for the course.
Republicans in Washington gutted health care funding, putting hundreds of rural hospitals at risk. Now they’re asking us to spend $1 billion of YOUR money on Trump’s golden ballroom.
Would I rather spend that $1 billion to keep those hospitals open? You bet.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History885 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
885 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
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.