Stupid. Reckless. Wasteful.
There are a lot of words to describe the Elon-Trump regime, but efficient is not one of them. apnews.com/article/fda-...
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Washington
Patty Murray
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 825
Yes25%
No69%
Present0%
Not Voting6%
Party align98%
Cross-party0%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Patty Murray
U.S. SenatorDemocratWashington
SoupScore
Patty's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 35 sponsored · 166 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Elon is firing HUNDREDS of highly skilled workers at Bonneville Power Administration.
Engineers, dispatchers, lineworkers. These positions are funded by PNW ratepayers—NOT from federal funding.
It doesn't save taxpayers a DIME! Our grid is at risk because Elon doesn't have a CLUE what BPA is.
Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine began 3 years ago today.
Trump might be curling up in Putin's lap, but I still stand with Ukraine in their fight to protect their people and their freedom.
Like many Americans, I'm on Ukraine's side, not Putin's.
Trump and Musk are taking a wrecking ball to the U.S. government.
Their illegal, arbitrary, and mass federal worker cuts undermine essential services for the American people—right down to the most basic functions of government, to break it beyond repair.
Gregg is a former Marine and Forest Service ranger. He's saved the lives of hikers dangling off a cliff or going through cardiac arrest, and he's bravely fought forest fires to save small rural towns.
100% of his salary is paid by WA state.
Elon fired him. Share his story.
The scale and scope of Trump and Elon’s purge of federal workers will set our country back decades.
You can't just fire everyone, gut critical agencies, halt funding to organizations across the country and think there won’t be massive consequences.
Spending isn't a “conspiracy” just because Musk doesn’t know how to read usaspending.gov.
A program isn't waste just because it doesn’t help the richest man in the world.
It isn't fraud just because he doesn’t like it.
A law is not illegal just because he disagrees with it.
While Trump is busy making problems worse, trampling our laws, and quoting dictators, Senate Republicans are turning a blind eye and—no they aren’t focused on the price of eggs—they're SPRINTING to pass tax cuts for billionaires.
This is happening because Elon Musk tweeted to kill the December funding bill & all the bipartisan health policies Congress negotiated fell apart.
Expanding telehealth brings DOWN costs. It makes health care MORE efficient, and it’s SO important for rural patients.
Trump & Musk are randomly firing people who:
➡️track bird flu & other disease outbreaks
➡️manage nuclear weapons
➡️conduct lifesaving cancer research
➡️fight wildfires
➡️ensure planes land safely
➡️& more.
It doesn’t "cut waste." It creates inefficiency & costs MORE down the line.
Trump is firing thousands upon thousands of VETERANS for no reason at all. These men & women put their lives on the line for our country and they do critical work, many of them serving other veterans! Trump and Musk’s reckless firing spree is beyond despicable.
More gut-wrenching data that shows what happens when Republicans ban abortion: more women hospitalized for PREVENTABLE conditions, more women miscarrying, more women dead.
Republicans want to control women's lives and bodies—no matter the consequences. www.propublica.org/article/texa...
It's nearly 5am and Republicans just rammed through their pro-billionaire, anti-middle class budget blueprint.
In order to pass massive tax giveaways for billionaires, they're going to defund Medicaid, slash veterans benefits, & force kids to go hungry.
Make sure everyone knows it.
Trump's illegal NIH cuts mean cancer researchers would be laid off, sick kids going without treatment, and more. These cuts would be DEVASTATING for lifesaving research.
Some Republicans have said they agree—but they just blocked my amendment to reverse Trump's NIH cuts anyway.
It's past midnight, and Senate Republicans are voting NO against every Democratic-led amendment to PROTECT HEALTH CARE for our families.
Pay close attention: Republicans are working to push kids off Medicaid to pass MORE tax cuts for billionaires.
We cannot only invest in our national defense—we've also got to address priorities at home—like support for veterans, disaster relief, child care, & so much more. I offered an amendment to make sure Congress addresses BOTH defense & nondefense needs. Republicans rejected it.
Hedge funds are buying homes that actual families—real people—should be able to purchase.
Democrats offered an amendment to push hedge funds OUT of the market and help real people to buy homes.
Republicans sided with hedge funds and against YOU and voted NO.
Senate Democrats just put forward an amendment to make sure no one making $1 BILLION per year gets MORE tax cuts.
Senate Republicans voted NO. Prices are up but don't worry Republicans are going to cut taxes for billionaires.
Senate Republicans just started the process to pass their budget giving billionaires a handout at the expense of the middle class.
We will NOT let them do this the easy way. I'll be doing everything I can to make this as painful as possible for Republicans & put them on record.
Republicans want to throw Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and veterans’ benefits into the wood chipper—they are calling for $1 trillion in cuts just this year alone!
All so billionaires get MORE tax cuts. No way. I'm speaking out, and I'm voting NO!
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History825 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
825 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table 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.