Mike Levin headshot
At a Glance
Seat
Representative for California District 49
Born
October 28, 1978
Age 47
Phone
(202) 225-3906
Office
2352 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Democrat|California District 49

Mike Levin

Michael Ted Levin is an American politician and attorney who serves as the U.S. representative for California's 49th congressional district since 2019. He is a member of the Democratic Party and represents most of San Diego's North County, as well as part of southern Orange County.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 496
Yes44%
No54%
Present1%
Not Voting1%
Party align97%
Cross-party3%
SoupScore
District Map

Congressional District 49

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Mike Levin headshot
Mike Levin
U.S. RepresentativeDemocratCalifornia District 49
SoupScore
Mike's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 24 sponsored · 90 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Today, Pete Hegseth told the Senate Armed Services Committee that “the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire” and therefore the Iran War is not subject to Congressional authorization. Here’s why he’s flat wrong:
The President started an unauthorized war with Iran, and Eric Trump just landed a $24 million Defense Department deal. And a company in Don Jr.’s portfolio just secured a $620 million Pentagon loan. Maybe it’s a coincidence. More likely it’s corruption.
This is your reminder that Trump and Republicans are spending billions of your tax dollars on an unauthorized war in Iran and Stephen Miller’s ICE agenda while gutting Medicaid, slashing SNAP, and driving up your health care costs.
DOGE was supposed to slash waste. Independent audits found the receipts were cooked. Not one American got a dollar back. Meanwhile, bills are up across the board. And House Republicans? Looking the other way while waste, fraud, and abuse run wild in Washington.
One known donor is ArcelorMittal, a foreign company which donated $37 million in steel. Two days after Trump praised the gift, his administration cut in half the tariffs on automotive steel from ArcelorMittal’s Canadian plant.
Powell renovated Fed buildings with Fed money, every dollar accounted for in public. Trump bulldozed the East Wing and is building his ballroom through a secret contract that hides donors and shields the White House from any conflict-of-interest review.
Trump spent months accusing the Fed Chair of fraud over a $2.5 billion renovation of Fed buildings. He demanded a criminal probe. A federal judge threw it out, finding “essentially zero evidence” of any crime. The Justice Department dropped the case last week.
Donald Trump promised for months that his White House ballroom would not cost taxpayers a dime. Now Lindsey Graham has introduced a bill to spend $400 million in taxpayer money on the project. So much for private donors footing the bill. Compare that to how Trump treated Jerome Powell.
This is not about whether Iran is a bad actor. This is about whether one man gets to start a war on his own. The answer, in America, has always been no.
In the courts, members of Congress have standing to sue when the executive nullifies our constitutional role, and that option must be on the table the moment this deadline passes.
We will fight this on every front. Legislatively, I will keep voting for every War Powers Resolution that comes to the floor and pressing Republican colleagues who once claimed to care about executive overreach.
They were not about to hand that power to one man in Washington. President Trump has done exactly what the Founders feared. He launched a major military campaign with no authorization for use of military force and no honest case made to the American people.
The Constitution is not subtle on this point. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare war. The Founders put that pen in our hands on purpose. They had just fought a revolution against a king who decided on his own when his subjects would bleed.
Districts that have given millions of Americans a real voice for decades are now at risk. The result will be a Congress that looks less like the country it serves.
The Voting Rights Act was signed by a Democratic president, strengthened under a Republican president, and renewed by the Senate 98 to 0 as recently as 2006. Ronald Reagan called the right to vote “the crown jewel of American liberties.” Today that jewel was cracked.
The ruling effectively lets states draw district maps that break apart minority communities and drown out their voices, as long as the state claims it was done for political reasons. This is not a left or right issue.
The Supreme Court just made it easier for politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. In a 6-3 decision today, the Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, the law that for 60 years has protected every American’s right to a fair vote.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
496 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
2025-09-10H.R. 3838 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOAgreed to
2025-09-10H.R. 3838 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOAgreed to
2025-09-10H.R. 3838 (119th)Approve amendmentYESYESAgreed to
2025-09-09H. Res. 682 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-09-09H. Res. 682 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-09-08H.R. 3425 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-09-08H.R. 3424 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.R. 4553 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-09-04H.J. Res. 105 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-09-04H.J. Res. 106 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-09-04H.J. Res. 104 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-09-03H. Res. 539 (119th)Kill the motionYESYESPassed
2025-09-03H. Res. 672 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-09-03H. Res. 672 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-09-02H.R. 747 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-09-02H.R. 4216 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-07-23H.R. 4275 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-07-23H.R. 3357 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-07-22H.R. 1917 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-07-22H.R. 3937 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-07-21H.R. 3351 (119th)Fast-track passageYESYESPassed
2025-07-21H.R. 3095 (119th)Fast-track passageNONOPassed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Send back to committeeYESYESFailed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-07-18H.R. 4016 (119th)Approve amendmentNONOFailed
2025-07-18H. Res. 590 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-07-18H. Res. 590 (119th)End debate nowNONOPassed
2025-07-17H.R. 1919 (119th)Final passageNONOPassed
2025-07-17S. 1582 (119th)Final passageYESNOPassed
2025-07-17H.R. 3633 (119th)Final passageYESNOPassed
2025-07-17H. Res. 580 (119th)Approve resolutionNONOPassed
2025-07-16H. Res. 580 (119th)Motion to ReconsiderNONOPassed

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 6 / 10Next →