"Whether approved by Congress or not" is certainly not "what our Founders desired."
Nor was a king disguised as a rambling fool.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|California
Adam B. Schiff
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes31%
No66%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align94%
Cross-party4%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Adam B. Schiff
U.S. SenatorDemocratCalifornia
SoupScore
Adam B.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 95 sponsored · 360 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
May your Valentines Day be Golden (state)!
ICE agents need to have body cameras on and masks off.
They need to abide by the same code of conduct as local law enforcement.
This is common sense.
Republicans in Congress need to join us in reining in ICE agents so we can end the chaos in our streets.
I’m starting an investigation into this new scheme.
Stop me if you’ve heard this before:
Trump’s White House is offering million-dollar donors special access to the President and official events — this time America’s 250th birthday.
This latest pay-to-play arrangement undercuts already crumbling public trust.
I've been clear — I will not support more funding for ICE until there are new guardrails to rein in its lawless conduct.
A continuing resolution on their current funding is merely more license for their current malfeasance.
I'm a no on anything but real reform.
Donald Trump is suing the IRS for $10 billion because a contractor illegally shared his tax returns.
Do each of the thousands of taxpayers who saw their confidential tax information illegally given to DHS get $10 billion as well?
Accommodation does not moderate authoritarian regimes, it emboldens them.
An important reminder that college and university leaders must fight to protect our democracy and intellectual freedom on college campuses. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
We must demand that these facilities comply with the law, and this ruling is a step in the right direction to do so, but the work to make this facility safe is just beginning.
When @padilla.senate.gov and I visited the California City Detention Center, we met with people who were held without basic medical treatment or, in many cases, no medical attention at all. 🧵
www.latimes.com/california/s...
For months, the administration falsely claimed that its military operations in the Caribbean were about stopping drugs. Now, they are hiding the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil in an offshore bank.
Where is the money going? Who benefits? We need answers. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/u...
Glenn Medical Center, the only hospital in Glenn County, closed last year due to bureaucratic red tape — forcing families to travel miles to get care.
Now, a new bipartisan law that I wrote with the late-Rep. LaMalfa is fixing Glenn's federal status and creating a pathway to reopening its doors.
When the administration comes after members of the House and Senate, our response should be: screw you, we’re not backing down.
In the face of a weaponized government trying to intimidate public servants for simply stating the law, we must fight back.
And give no quarter.
The administration is trying to indict members of Congress for speaking truth to power.
This is a grave threat to the First Amendment and the right of citizens to choose their own representatives.
The time to speak out is now.
The grand jury upheld the rule of law. Against an administration that won’t.
Trump’s DOJ lackeys just tried to indict Members of Congress for stating the obvious:
You don’t have to follow illegal orders.
That the DOJ would even contemplate such an action demonstrates what a repressive regime is now running this country. 🧵
There is still a lot we need to know about the remaining Epstein Files.
But one thing we know for sure: this administration has been lying, consistently, about the Epstein Files and their attempts to cover up his connections to them and Trump himself. youtu.be/Z7rF-6TP9h0?...
The Vice President’s deletion of this post only deepens the pain of the Armenian community which saw this White House retreat on Armenian Genocide recognition.
Another capitulation to Turkey, in such a sloppy manner as to invite further scrutiny of this admin's retreat on human rights & the truth.
$600,000,000 slashed from public health funding in four blue states, the vast majority targeting California.
These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease.
It's dangerous, and it's deliberate. The Trump administration's targeting of blue states is illegal and must end.
It was great to welcome high school students from AJC to the Capitol. Across the nation and the world, we're seeing an alarming rise in antisemitism, and I'm proud of these young leaders who are focused on combatting hate.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History890 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
890 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-12-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (57-32) |
| 2025-12-04 | S. Res. 520 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-04 | H.J. Res. 131 (119th) | Approve resolution | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Joint Resolution Passed (49-45) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-34) |
| 2025-12-03 | S.J. Res. 91 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-41) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-40) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (60-39) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-36) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-12-01 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-41) |
| 2025-11-20 | H.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-43) |
| 2025-11-19 | S.J. Res. 76 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-51) |
| 2025-11-19 | S.J. Res. 89 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-11-19 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (66-32) |
| 2025-11-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (65-32) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (60-40) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (60-40) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (76-24) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (47-53) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (47-53) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40) |
| 2025-11-09 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-07 | S. 3012 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-06 | S.J. Res. 90 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 90 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-11-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-43) |
| 2025-11-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-41) |
| 2025-11-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-11-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-11-04 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-10-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-10-30 | S.J. Res. 88 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-47) |
| 2025-10-30 | S.J. Res. 80 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-29 | S.J. Res. 77 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-46) |
| 2025-10-29 | S.J. Res. 69 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (25-72) |
| 2025-10-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-10-29 | S.J. Res. 80 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46) |
| 2025-10-28 | S.J. Res. 81 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-10-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2025-10-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
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.