Not only would this weaken due process; it would make it harder for PNS to recruit and retain skilled workers, jeopardizing our national security.
Our federal workforce should be built on merit, fairness and accountability—not weaker due process protections that make public service less attractive.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Representative|Democrat|Maine District 1
Chellie Pingree
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 612
Yes42%
No53%
Present1%
Not Voting5%
Party align98%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Congressional District 1
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Chellie Pingree
U.S. RepresentativeDemocratMaine District 1
SoupScore
Chellie's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 23 sponsored · 176 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The Office of Personnel Management + Merit Systems Protection Board are proposing a rule that would weaken civil service protections—including for more than 8,000 workers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNS).
Sen. King and I joined the NH delegation in calling on OPM + MSPB to rescind this rule.
Coming from the most divisive Administration in history, that’s pretty rich.
Understanding history isn’t about cherry-picking the good things and ignoring everything else. It’s about telling the truth—even when that truth is painful or inconvenient.
What Trump did to the Kennedy Center—slapping his name on it, throwing it into chaos—is a preview of what he's trying to do with the Smithsonian.
It's about control. He wants to turn these institutions into propaganda machines, rewriting history and erasing anything he thinks is “too divisive."
First the Admin made massive cuts to the NPS.
Now Trump is using our parks to bankroll his vanity projects—to the tune of $75 million so far.
The NPS has a project backlog of $24 BILLION. But Trump cares more about building monuments to his ego.
People need HEALTH CARE + FOOD. Not gilded horses!
It'll also worsen the affordability crisis, forcing parents to quit jobs or reduce their hours to care for their kids.
Head start costs $12.4B a year. They've already spent AT LEAST THREE TIMES THAT on Trump’s war!
This isn’t about “efficiency.” It’s about dismantling a popular, proven program.
Head Start has served 30+ million kids, including tens of thousands in Maine. It’s had bipartisan support.
The Admin wants to kill it.
After failing to freeze funding, their new plan is to lower standards for curricula, medical screenings, and more—so fewer kids get the care + education they need.
Starting now! 👇
Tune in live TODAY @ 1 pm for my conversation with @heathercoxrichardson.skystack.xyz
We’ll discuss how Trump is trying to seize control of our arts, culture, + history—from the Kennedy Center and Smithsonian to the NEA and NEH—and how Congress can fight back by reasserting its power of the purse.
Sustaining rural maternity care requires major policy changes. I’ll keep fighting for those changes. But I’m calling on MaineHealth to exhaust every possible option here.
At some point we have to draw a line—or risk sending the message that you can't raise a family in Maine outside our big cities.
I delivered all 3 of my kids at hospitals that no longer provide labor and delivery care. Maine has lost 10 birthing units in just the past decade.
While I appreciate the challenges hospitals like Lincoln face, closing this unit would be devastating for patients, workers, and Midcoast communities.
The EPA is taking public comments on this dangerous rollback. Make your voice heard.
We're going to keep fighting this reckless retreat from science every step of the way.
www.federalregister.gov/documents/20...
There's nothing "hypothetical" or "hilarious” about losing your farm, euthanizing your herd, or wondering whether your family's land has been permanently contaminated.
Maine farmers know that better than anyone.
In Congress, Lee Zeldin was part of the bipartisan PFAS Task Force. Now, he's rejecting science, dodging basic questions, and abandoning farmers whose lives have been destroyed by PFAS contamination.
Kudos to Lisa Fletcher for refusing to let him change the subject and holding his feet to the fire.
From the outside, it looks like just another office. But processing facilities like this one are critical to the Trump Administration’s cruel deportation agenda.
I'm fighting every day to get ICE OUT of Maine and hold this lawless agency accountable.
Back in 2021, I raised serious concerns about ICE moving into this facility in Scarborough—including the lack of community input.
While it may be symbolic, the town's proclamation sends a strong message.
The public deserves to know who’s working there, what they’re doing, and how they’re doing it.
The cost of health care has become one of the biggest pain points for million of Americans.
That’s why I support Medicare For All—because health care is a right, not a privilege, and we should address this affordability crisis with a real, transformative solution.
On this day 61 years ago, Medicare and Medicaid became law.
These programs have saved lives, driven innovation, and ensured that older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income families can access the care they need.
Trump and Republicans want to destroy both.
We will NOT let them win.
The tragic death of Johan Guerrero—at the hands of an agent who’s been accused of domestic violence, and was rejected by several police departments—is a chilling reminder of why stronger oversight is urgently needed.
THIS is what it looks like when people stand up, speak out, and demand action.
I want to thank the Scarborough Town Council for voting to demand stronger oversight of its ICE facility—and the many citizens who came out to demand accountability.
For far too long, ICE has operated with impunity, terrorizing people and communities in service of Trump’s cruel immigration agenda.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History612 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
612 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 8029 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-03-26 | H. Res. 1128 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 5103 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 5103 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-03-25 | H. Res. 1131 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-25 | H. Res. 1131 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-24 | H.R. 6422 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-19 | H.R. 4638 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-18 | H.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Fast-track passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-03-18 | H.R. 1958 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-18 | H.R. 556 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-18 | H.R. 556 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-03-17 | H. Res. 1115 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-17 | H. Res. 1115 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-17 | S. 3971 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-17 | H.R. 4294 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7744 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7744 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-03-05 | H. Con. Res. 38 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-03-05 | H. Res. 1099 (119th) | Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree | NO | YES | ✕ | Passed |
| 2026-03-04 | H. Res. 1100 (119th) | Motion to Refer | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-04 | H.R. 6472 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-04 | S. 723 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-04 | H. Res. 1095 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-03-04 | H. Res. 1095 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-25 | H.R. 4758 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-25 | H.R. 4758 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 4626 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 4626 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-02-24 | H. Res. 1075 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-24 | H. Res. 1075 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-24 | S. 2503 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 6329 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-12 | H.R. 2189 (119th) | Final passage | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Passed |
| 2026-02-11 | S. 1383 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-11 | S. 1383 (119th) | Motion to Commit | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-02-11 | H.R. 261 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-11 | H.R. 261 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-02-11 | H.J. Res. 72 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-11 | H.R. 3617 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-11 | H.R. 3617 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-02-11 | H. Res. 1057 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-11 | H. Res. 1057 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-11 | H. Res. 1042 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Failed |
| 2026-02-11 | H. Res. 1042 (119th) | End debate now | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-10 | H.R. 1531 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-09 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Fast-track passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-04 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-04 | H.R. 4090 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Passed |
| 2026-02-04 | H.R. 4090 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Failed |
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.