Richard J. Durbin headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Illinois
Born
November 21, 1944
Age 81
Phone
(202) 224-2152
Office
711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Illinois

Richard J. Durbin

Richard Joseph Durbin is an American politician and attorney serving as the senior United States senator from the state of Illinois, a seat he has held since 1997. A member of the Democratic Party, Durbin is in his fifth Senate term and has served since 2005 as the Senate Democratic Whip and since 2025 as the Senate minority whip. He is the longest-serving Democratic whip since the position was established in 1913. Durbin chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2021 to 2025, and led the Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination hearings.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 789
Yes34%
No63%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align93%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Richard J. Durbin headshot
Richard J. Durbin
U.S. SenatorDemocratIllinois
SoupScore
Richard J.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 126 sponsored · 340 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

I met today with Andrew Duva, nominated to be an Assistant Attorney General. The American people demand a DOJ that puts the Constitution before any president.   We need appointees willing to say “no” to unlawful directives.   Look forward to hearing more from him at his hearing.
2 million Illinoisans will be hurt if USDA shuts off SNAP’s grocery benefits on November 1st. But House Republicans are taking their fifth week of vacation instead of going to work to fix this.
This shut down is about health care. Democrats want to ensure Americans avoid a 114% spike in their insurance premiums. But Republicans won’t even talk to us. In fact, most of them are on vacation right now!
After cutting SNAP for 340,000 Illinoisans in the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” the Trump USDA says they will completely stop SNAP on November 1st due to their government shutdown. This White House has money for a new ballroom, but not for regular people struggling to afford groceries.
In 9 days, Illinoisans will receive their updated health insurance premiums for 2026. Because of Republican inaction, those premiums will be more than 100% higher than they were this year. Who can afford their premium doubling in one year?
For Republicans to use their shutdown as an excuse to halt SNAP grocery assistance is cruel. Vulnerable families, kids, seniors, and people with disabilities rely on SNAP to eat, but Republicans would rather watch them struggle than work with Democrats to re-open the government.
I sent a letter to the DOD IG to call for an inquiry into the deployments of troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, D.C., Portland, and Memphis. Using the military to support immigration operations is unnecessary, dangerous for civil rights, and risks straining military readiness.
The Republicans’ lapse in funding is reaching our judicial system. This could mean justice delayed—or even justice denied. It’s past time for Republicans to get serious about making a deal.
Donald Trump gave Argentina a $20 billion bailout while USDA says it must stop SNAP grocery assistance on November 1. If you are powerful and connected, then you get a bailout, but if you are a regular Illinois family, you don’t get a cent to afford food.
Horrible. There’s no such thing as “looking American.” These are U.S. citizens being targeted by ICE for doing nothing wrong. And President Trump is to blame.
A Supreme Court order in September allowed for racial profiling in immigration arrests when someone doesn’t “look” American. Justice Brett Kavanaugh insisted “apparent ethnicity” can be a factor in arrest. The Kavanaugh Stop is very real. It just happened in Chicago. Terrifying.
I spoke with NORTHCOM leadership about the Trump Administration’s unlawful deployment of troops to American cities. I appreciate NORTHCOM’s willingness to communicate with us about the size & scope of military presence in Illinois as DHS officials shut Illinois leaders out.
Secretary Noem made time to go to Chicago for a glossy promo video. But she refuses to meet with me and Senator Duckworth or respond to oversight requests. We need to hear from her under oath.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
789 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
2025-05-08H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (50-43)
2025-05-08S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (50-38)
2025-05-07S.J. Res. 13 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-47)
2025-05-06H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-06S.J. Res. 7 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-47)
2025-05-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-05-06S.J. Res. 13 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46)
2025-05-06H.J. Res. 61 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (55-45)
2025-05-05H.J. Res. 61 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-43)
2025-05-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (50-45)
2025-05-01S.J. Res. 31 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-46)
2025-05-01H.J. Res. 75 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-45)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 31 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-40)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 49 (119th)Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (49-49, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-04-30S.J. Res. 49 (119th)Approve resolutionYESYESJoint Resolution Defeated (49-49)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 75 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-30H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (52-46)
2025-04-29H.J. Res. 42 (119th)Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (83-14)
2025-04-29End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (84-13)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-36)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-36)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-04-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-39)
2025-04-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (67-29)
2025-04-28End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (64-27)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (60-25)
2025-04-11End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-25)
2025-04-11Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-26)
2025-04-11End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-25)
2025-04-10Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-46)
2025-04-10End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-46)
2025-04-10H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOJoint Resolution Passed (53-44)
2025-04-09H.J. Res. 20 (119th)Begin considerationNOT_VOTINGNOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (52-42)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-45)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-46)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (60-37)
2025-04-09Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-46)
2025-04-09End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-42)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (60-37)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-46)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (66-32)
2025-04-08End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-32)
2025-04-08Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-45)
2025-04-07End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-39)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (48-51)
2025-04-05H. Con. Res. 14 (119th)Accept House changesNONOConcurrent Resolution Agreed to (51-48)

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 12 / 16Next →