First this admin decided to withhold SNAP all together. Now, they're trying to get away with partial payments. Stop playing political games with people's food. Leave hungry families out of it.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Georgia
Raphael G. Warnock
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 890
Yes34%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Raphael G. Warnock
U.S. SenatorDemocratGeorgia
SoupScore
Raphael G.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 27 sponsored · 192 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
I visited Goodr this morning, a grocery store for low-income families in ATL. The bottom line is people are struggling to afford food in this economy. This admin needs to stop dragging hungry families into their political games. There are real consequences for real people.
Republicans in DC are demanding that I vote for a budget bill that fails to fund health care. I’m happy to work across the aisle to fund the government. But I can’t vote for a budget that does nothing about our health care crisis.
We’re staring down a health care crisis in this country. It’s real and it’s happening right now. Premiums are skyrocketing for millions. The time to fix it is NOW.
We have to address the immediate crisis caused by Republican health care cuts. Then, we need to have a serious conversation about how the status quo is not working. The cost of health care is out of control.
It’s good news that the courts are forcing the Trump admin to release funds for SNAP. However, the fact that a court order was even needed is emblematic of the moral rot in DC. This admin insists on playing political games with peoples’ lives.
It’s a sad day when a judge has to order the President of the United States to feed vulnerable families and hungry children with funds already designated for that very purpose.
Happy Halloween! Wishing everyone a spooky, safe, and fun filled night of trick-or-treating! 🎃
Republicans in DC have settled on a new political strategy: Pit people who rely on SNAP against people who rely on the ACA.
Just when I thought DC gutter politics couldn’t get any worse, they’ve hit a new low.
The Trump admin is making a CHOICE to cut off SNAP. They think it gives them political leverage. I can’t think of something more craven and cynical than this.
This makes me sick.
Republicans in DC are manufacturing a crisis. They’re choosing not to send out SNAP benefits in a cynical attempt to gain political leverage.
This is truly Washington at its worst.
GM just announced that they are cutting hundreds of Georgia jobs.
This is a direct result of the reckless and harmful policies coming from the admin in DC.
Enough is enough.
The House hasn’t shown up for work in weeks. They all would have lost their health coverage by now if they were subject to the same bureaucratic work reporting requirements Republicans put in place for folks on Medicaid.
A new report shows that Georgia has lost almost $3 billion in energy investments because of this admin's cuts to these Georgia jobs. Power bills are skyrocketing in our state and Republicans in DC are making it worse.
The President has been promising a new health care plan since 2015. 10 years later, there’s still no plan besides gutting Medicaid, attacking the ACA, and doubling premiums for millions of people.
I’m not going to sit around and let health care premiums double for Georgians. People can’t afford housing. They can’t afford child care. I won’t allow premiums to double on top of all that.
All of God’s children deserve health care.
The House hasn’t shown up for work in weeks. Members of Congress should be required to meet work requirements to maintain their own health benefits. Can we see how that'd go?
We live in the richest nation on earth. No one should be going bankrupt paying for their health insurance.
Starting Nov 1, SNAP benefits will be delayed in Georgia. This admin could send out benefits if they wanted to but they are CHOOSING not to. It’s a craven attempt to gain leverage in their fight to rip health care away from millions. I will fight this.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (73-25) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (60-31) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (62-30) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-32) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (64-33) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (54-46) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (27-73) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-14 | H.R. 1968 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-38, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-14 | S. 331 (119th) | Final passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Bill Passed (84-16) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-40) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-39) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2025-03-13 | S. 331 (119th) | End debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-15, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-45) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-03-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-41) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-03-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (78-19) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (76-20) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-03-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (67-32) |
| 2025-03-06 | S. 331 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | YES | ✕ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (82-12, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-30) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-06 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-03-05 | S.J. Res. 28 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-47) |
| 2025-03-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 28 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 3 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-27) |
| 2025-03-04 | S.J. Res. 3 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-03 | S. 9 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-03-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-27 | H.J. Res. 35 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 12 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-26 | S.J. Res. 10 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-52) |
| 2025-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-43) |
| 2025-02-25 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (54-44) |
| 2025-02-25 | S.J. Res. 11 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-42) |
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.