Maria Cantwell on Civil Rights Democratic Jr Senator (WA)

Votes against Ashcroft, citing desegregation

As Attorney General of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft used the power of his office to fight court orders on desegregation of the St. Louis school system. Although the court of appeals and the Supreme Court repeatedly denied his attempts to thwart the implementation of the desegregation plan, he continued to seek new challenges to the order. The federal district court criticized his legal actions, stating that “the court can draw only one conclusion -- the state has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of the court.” And in a later court order, the court characterized Ashcroft’s appeals as “feckless.” I find it disturbing that Ashcroft risked a contempt of court threat from a judge to continue his stubborn opposition to desegregation.

Diversity is a priority

A: Well I’m seeking an office in an institution where there are a hundred members and 9 of them are women. So I can tell you I know that it’s a priority to get diversification. As a US Senator, I would work to make sure that we are continuing to promote the names of individuals throughout this community that are of minority status so that we can help to promote them to these kinds of positions. That’s the kind of pledge and dedication I made in my private sector company in trying to hire and promote women and minorities, that’s the way I ran my Congressional Office, that’s the way I run my campaign.

Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :
1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

1. the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
2. the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
3. abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
4. destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Proponents of the Resolution say:
• Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
• In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away in 1989.
• 48 States had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.
• I also believe that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created.
• Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest.
• I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it.
• Is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings?

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Proponents of the motion say:
• If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
• Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.

  The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.

Opponents of the motion say:
• This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.

  Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?

• Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
• This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Voted NO on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all.

Strengthen America’s Common Civic Culture
The more ethnically and culturally diverse America becomes, the harder we must all work to affirm our common civic culture -- the values and democratic institutions we share and that define our national identity as Americans. This means we should resist an “identity politics” that confers rights and entitlements on groups and instead affirm our common rights and responsibilities as citizens. Multiethnic democracy requires fighting discrimination against marginalized groups; empowering the disadvantaged to join the economic, political, and cultural mainstream; and respecting diversity while insisting that what we have in common as Americans is more important than how we differ. One way to encourage an ethic of citizenship and mutual obligation is to promote voluntary national service. If expanded to become available to everyone who wants to participate, national service can help turn the strong impulse toward volunteerism among our young people into a major resource in addressing our social problems. It will also help revive a sense of patriotism and national unity at a time when military service is no longer the common experience of young Americans.

Goals for 2010
• Reduce discrimination based on race, gender, national background, religion, age, disability, or sexual orientation.
• Shift the emphasis of affirmative action strategies from group preferences to economic empowerment of all disadvantaged citizens.
• Expand the AmeriCorps national service program so that everyone willing to serve can serve -- with 1 million participants enrolled by the end of the decade.
• Promote character education in all public schools.

Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Our ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business.

Amends the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business centers program to provide Small Business Administration funding authority for nonprofit organizations conducting projects for the benefit of small businesses owned and controlled by women. Increases from 30 to 54 the percentage of appropriated women's business center funds to be used during FY 2004 for sustained women's business center projects.

Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

• 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
• 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
• 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)

The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.

Rated 93% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:

• 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
• 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked over the years to support and promote our country's civil rights agenda. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels. From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many negative aspects of American society.

ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.

Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Prohibits related retaliation.

Makes this Act inapplicable to:
1. religious organizations; and
2. the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.

Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools.

Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011:
• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.
• Deems a state's receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.

Constitutional Amendment for women's equal rights.

JOINT RESOLUTION: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Constitutional Amendment: Prohibits denying or abridging equality of rights under the law by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the several States:
1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com and OnTheIssues.org]:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress, but failed to gain ratification before its June 30, 1982 deadline. This new proposed amendment is identical in wording to the original 1972 proposed amendment. It was proposed in Congress in every session from 1923 through 1970 prior to passing in 1972; and has been re-introduced in Congress in every session since 1982 after its failure at ratification. The current version removes the Congressionally imposed deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, so that if the bill passes Congress, states have no deadline as they did in 1982.

Endorsed by The Feminist Majority indicating a pro-women's rights stance.

The Feminist Majority endorses candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In addition to the stronger "endorsement," the organization also determines "preferred" candidates in races where they do not endorse. Their mission statement:

"Our mission is to empower feminists, who are the majority, and to win equality for women at the decision-making tables of the state, nation, and the world. The Feminist Majority promotes non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity, age, marital status, nation of origin, size or disability. The purpose of Feminist Majority is to promote equality for women and men, non-violence, reproductive health, peace, social justice and economic development and to enhance feminist participation in public policy. Feminist Majority supports workers’ collective bargaining, pay equity, and end of sweatshops. We encourage programs directed at the preservation of the environment."

Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender.

Congress finds the following:
1. Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
2. Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
3. The existence of such pay disparities depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet; and undermines women's retirement security.
4. Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. These barriers have resulted because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended.
5. The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
6. The Department of Labor is responsible for investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act.
8. With a stronger commitment [to enforcement], increased information on wage data and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
9. Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.

Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.

Congressional Summary:

• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct made unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.

  Opponent's argument against bill:(by Cato Institute reported on Fox News): A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to "homosexual indoctrination" in the nation's classrooms, critics say.

  "The real danger is how this will be interpreted," said the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. "The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal. That's a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this--not because they're 'haters' but because you're now trying to balance different rights."

  Proponent's argument for bill: (Rep. Jared POLIS, House sponsor): "Hatred has no place in the classroom. Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence. This bill will protect the freedoms of our students and enshrine the values of equality and opportunity in the classroom."

  Source: H.R.1652 / S.1088 13-S1088 on Jun 4, 2013

  Let states recognize same sex marriage.

  Cantwell signed Respect for Marriage Act

  Congressional Summary: Amends the Defense of Marriage Act to let states recognize same sex marriage. Defines "marriage" to provide that an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the state or country where the marriage was entered into. Removes the definition of "spouse" (currently, a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife).

  Wikipedia and GLAAD history: In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) struck down the act's provisions disallowing same-sex marriages to be performed under federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court case did not challenge Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 declares that all states have the right to deny recognition of the marriage of same sex couples that originated in states where they are legally recognized.

  Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (3/20/2013): Americans respect marriage, not only as a crucial institution of civil society but the fundamental building block of all human civilization. This is why 41 states and the federal government affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. The government isn't in the business of affirming our loves. Rather it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. And contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, and choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship. What's at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages--and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.

  Legislative outcome: Died in Committee (never came to a vote).

  Source: S.29 & H.197 17-S0029 on Jan 6, 2015

  Maintain LGBT health info on federal websites.

  Cantwell signed Letter from 19 Senators to President Trump

  We write to you to express serious concerns about the removal of critical LGBT health and scientific information from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website, and the removal of LGBT population-based data reports from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) website. These actions reveal a pattern of censorship that fosters discrimination and undermines access to evidence-based health care resources that aid millions across the country.

  Administration officials claim that this online information is integrated elsewhere, being updated, or temporarily down for maintenance. We have seen previous Administrations undermine LGBT health due to ideological pressure from conservative organizations by abruptly deleting online health information--similarly under the guise of site maintenance.

  To help us better understand these disturbing developments, please respond to the following questions:
  • Why did HHS elect to remove or change the LGBT resources on the website?
  • What plans do you have to communicate these changes to site users and the public?
  • Why were policy papers and reports on sexual orientation and gender identity data collection efforts removed or rendered inaccessible from the OMB website?
  • What federal departments were involved in making this decision?
  • Will the information on sexual orientation and gender identity data collection from the OMB site be made available on the new website? If so, when?
  You have repeatedly broken your campaign promises to support and protect the LGBT community, and this latest assault on a vulnerable population could further compromise the health of more than ten million LGBT people. We are concerned that you are putting politics ahead of science and access to evidence-based health care that is critical for millions, and so we call on you to reverse course to ensure that our federal programs serve the needs of all people. Source: Letter from 19 Senators to President Trump 18LTR-LGBT on Apr 12, 2018

  Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

  Cantwell co-sponsored providing benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees

  Sen. LIEBERMAN: This legislation would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.

  Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

  The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.

  I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.

  SUMMARY: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007

  Employees and their domestic partners will have the same benefits as married employees and their spouses under--
  • Employee health benefits
  • Retirement and disability plans
  • Family, medical, and emergency leave
  • Group life insurance
  • Long-term care insurance
  • Compensation for work injuries
  • Death, disability, and similar benefits
  • Relocation, travel, and related expenses.
  Source: Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S.2521/H.R.4838) 2007-S2521 on Dec 19, 2007

  Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.

  Cantwell co-sponsored re-introducing the Equal Rights Amendment
  A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women, which shall be part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States:
  • Section 1.Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
  • Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
  • Section 3.This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.
  Sen. KENNEDY. "It's a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on today, since discrimination still continues in many ways.

  "Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act & the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. More than 60% of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

  "A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment.

  "We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But the women of America deserve no less."

  Source: Equal Rights Amendment (S.J.RES.10/H.J.RES.40) 2007-SJR10 on Mar 29, 2007

  Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements.

  Cantwell co-sponsored reinforcing anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements

  A bill to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and remedies under civil rights statutes. Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for:

  1. establishing discrimination based on disparate impact; and
  2. rights of action and recovery for unlawful discrimination.
  • Authorizes civil actions in federal court for discrimination based on disability.
  • Repeals provisions limiting the amount of compensatory and punitive damages that may be awarded in cases of intentional discrimination in employment.
  • Revises provisions governing discrimination in the payment of wages, including equal pay requirements.
  Source: Civil Rights Act of 2008 (S.2554&H.R.5129) 2008-S2554 on Jan 24, 2008

  Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Maria Cantwell. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Maria Cantwell. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Maria Cantwell. Click here for a summary of Maria Cantwell's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other WA politicians. Click here for issue statements from WA primary archives. Click here for issue statements from WA secondary archives.
  Other candidates on Civil Rights:		Maria Cantwell on other issues:
  WA Gubernatorial: Bill Bryant Jay Inslee Loren Culp Phil Fortunato WA Senatorial: Chris Vance Dave Strider Jennifer Ferguson Mike Luke Patty Murray Susan Hutchison WA politicians WA Archives	Senate races 2021-22: AK: Incumbent Lisa Murkowski(R) vs.Challenger Kelly Tshibaka(R) vs.2020 candidate Al Gross(D) AL: Incumbent Richard Shelby(R) vs.U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks(R) vs.Ambassador Lynda Blanchard(R) vs.Katie Britt(R) vs.Judge Jessica Taylor(R) vs.Brandaun Dean(D) vs.State Rep. John Merrill(R) AR: Incumbent John Boozman(R) vs.Candidate Dan Whitfield(D) vs.Jake Bequette(R) AZ: Incumbent Mark Kelly(D) vs.CEO Jim Lamon(R) vs.Blake Masters(R) vs.A.G. Mark Brnovich(R) vs.Mick McGuire(R) CA: Incumbent Alex Padilla(D) vs.2018 Senate candidate James Bradley(R) vs.Lily Zhou(R) vs.State Rep. Jerome Horton(D) CO: Incumbent Michael Bennet(D) vs.Eli Bremer(R) vs.USAF Lt. Darryl Glenn(R) CT: Incumbent Richard Blumenthal(D) vs.Challenger Joe Visconti(R) vs.2018 & 2020 House candidate John Flynn(R) FL: Incumbent Marco Rubio(R) vs.U.S.Rep. Val Demings(D) vs.U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson(D) GA: Incumbent Raphael Warnock(D) vs.Navy vet Latham Saddler(R) vs.Gary Black(R) vs.Herschel Walker(R) HI: Incumbent Brian Schatz(D) vs.Former State Rep. Cam Cavasso(R ?) IA: Incumbent Chuck Grassley(R) vs.State Sen. Jim Carlin(R) vs.Michael Franken(D) vs.Bob Krause(D) vs.Former U.S. Rep IA-1 Abby Finkenauer(D) ID: Incumbent Mike Crapo(R) vs.James Vandermaas(D) vs.Natalie Fleming(R) IL: Incumbent Tammy Duckworth(D) vs.U.S.Rep. Adam Kinzinger(? R) vs.Peggy Hubbard(R) IN: Incumbent Todd Young(R) vs.Challenger Haneefah Abdul-Khaaliq(D) vs.Psychologist Valerie McCray(D) vs.Thomas McDermott(D) KS: Incumbent Jerry Moran(R) vs.Michael Soetaert(D) vs.Mark Holland(D) vs.Joan Farr(R) KY: Incumbent Rand Paul(R) vs.State Rep Charles Booker(D) LA: Incumbent John Kennedy(R) vs.Luke Mixon(D) vs.Gary Chambers(D)	MD: Incumbent Chris Van Hollen(D) vs.Colin Byrd(D) MO: Incumbent Roy Blunt(R) vs.Eric Greitens(R) vs.Scott Sifton(D) vs.Eric Schmitt(R) vs.Lucas Kunce(D) vs.Mark McClosky(R) vs.Vicky Hartzler(R) vs.Tim Shepard(D) vs.Billy Long(R) NC: Incumbent Richard Burr(R,retiring) Erica Smith(D) vs.Mark Walker(R) vs.Ted Budd(R) vs.Pat McCrory(R) vs.Cheri Beasley(D) vs.Rett Newton(D) vs.Jeff Jackson(D) vs.Marjorie K. Eastman(R) ND: Incumbent John Hoeven(R) vs.Michael J. Steele(D) NH: Incumbent Maggie Hassan(D) vs.Don Bolduc(R) vs.Chris Sununu(R ?) NV: Incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto(D) vs.Adam Laxalt(R) NY: Incumbent Chuck Schumer(D) vs.Antoine Tucker(R) OH: Incumbent Rob Portman(R,retiring) Bernie Moreno(R) vs.Tim Ryan(D) vs.Jane Timken(R) vs.Josh Mandel(R) vs.JD Vance(R) vs.Mike Gibbons(R) vs.Morgan Harper(D) vs.Matt Dolan(R) OK: Incumbent James Lankford(R) vs.Nathan Dahm(R) vs.Joan Farr(R) OR: Incumbent Ron Wyden(D) vs.QAnon adherent Jo Rae Perkins(R) vs.Jason Beebe(R) PA: Incumbent Pat Toomey(R,retiring) vs.Everett Stern(R) vs.Jeff Bartos(R) vs.Val Arkoosh(D) vs.Carla Sands(R) vs.John Fetterman(D) vs.Malcolm Kenyatta(D) vs.Kathy Barnette(R) vs.Sharif Street(D) vs.Conor Lamb(D) vs.Sean Parnell(R) vs.Craig Snyder(R) vs.Mehmet Oz(R) SC: Incumbent Tim Scott(R) vs.State Rep. Krystle Matthews(D) SD: Incumbent John Thune(R) vs.State Rep. Billie Sutton(? D) UT: Incumbent Mike Lee(R) vs.Allen Glines(D) vs.Austin Searle(D) vs.Evan McMullin(I) VT: Incumbent Patrick Leahy(D) vs.Scott Milne(? R) vs.Peter Welch(D) WA: Incumbent Patty Murray(D) vs.Challenger Tiffany Smiley(R) WI: Incumbent Ron Johnson(R) vs.Tom Nelson(D) vs.Sarah Godlewski(D) vs.Alex Lasry(D) vs.Chris Larson(D) vs.Mandela Barnes(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
  Contact info: Fax Number: 202-228-0514 Mailing Address: Senate Office SD-511, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-3441

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Dec 27, 2021