Adam B. Schiff headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from California
Born
June 22, 1960
Age 66
Phone
(202) 224-3841
Office
112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20515
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|California

Adam B. Schiff

Voting Record — 890
Yes31%
No66%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align94%
Cross-party4%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Adam B. Schiff headshot
Adam B. Schiff
U.S. SenatorDemocratCalifornia
SoupScore
Adam B.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 95 sponsored · 360 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

Today, we remember the six million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. Their murder is a testament to where unchecked hatred against a people can lead. We honor their memory by recognizing the dangerous growth of this ancient hatred and recommitting to the fight against antisemitism worldwide.
I hope his return will bring comfort to his family, and mark the beginning of a more peaceful Middle East, with the opening of the Rafah Corridor and Hamas laying down its arms.
As California’s first Senator on the Agriculture Committee in more than 30 years, it was my honor to address CA farmers at the 46th annual EcoFarm Conference in Monterey County! CA farmers and farm workers are facing unprecedented challenges, and I’m proud to be their champion in Washington.
The White House called Alex Pretti an “assassin.” They called Renee Good a “domestic terrorist.” And their investigations are shutting out local officials. They tell Americans not to believe ‘their lying eyes.’ But no one can believe a word they say.
The White House called Alex Pretti an “assassin.” They called Renee Good a “domestic terrorist.” And their investigations are shutting out local officials. They tell Americans not to believe ‘their lying eyes.’ But no one can believe a word they say.
The legally-mandated release of the Epstein files is now more than one month overdue. There are still MILLIONS of pages DOJ has yet to release. What are Trump's personal lawyers at the DOJ trying to hide?
California’s capital is on the rise! Thank you to Mayor McCarty for the warm welcome – looking forward to continuing to work together to deliver for Sacramento!
Kristi Noem is telling ICE agents they can forcibly enter your home without a judicial warrant. That is unconstitutional. History will judge us if we do not stand up to the lawlessness and cruelty of this administration.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
890 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
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (49-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (49-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-45)
2025-08-02Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-08-02End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-41)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-44)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNOYESAmendment Agreed to (81-15)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Final passageNOYESBill Passed (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNOYESAmendment Agreed to (87-9, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (21-75)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (15-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentNONOAmendment Rejected (14-81)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (45-50)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (42-53)
2025-08-01H.R. 3944 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (44-51)
2025-08-01Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Points of Order Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 3114)YESYESMotion Rejected (44-51, 3/5 majority required)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-43)
2025-08-01Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-08-01End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-41)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-44)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-39)
2025-07-31Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-45)
2025-07-31End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-41)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (59-38)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 34 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 34NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (24-73)
2025-07-30S.J. Res. 41 (119th)Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 41NOYESMotion to Discharge Rejected (27-70)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (52-44)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-44)
2025-07-30Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-45)
2025-07-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-49)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-44)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-45)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (51-47)
2025-07-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-47)
2025-07-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-47)

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.

← PrevPage 9 / 18Next →