Individual Senators' Votes on Universal Background Checks

The Senate defeated the attempt to expand background checks for gun purchases on April 17, 2013.  Here is the tally:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 113^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Manchin Amdt. No. 715 )
Vote Number:	97	Vote Date:	April 17, 2013, 04:04 PM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number:	S.Amdt. 715 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Statement of Purpose:	To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	54
	NAYs	46

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Nay Ayotte (R-NH), Nay Baldwin (D-WI), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Nay Begich (D-AK), Nay Bennet (D-CO), Yea Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Blunt (R-MO), Nay Boozman (R-AR), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Burr (R-NC), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Coats (R-IN), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Collins (R-ME), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Cowan (D-MA), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Nay Cruz (R-TX), Nay Donnelly (D-IN), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Fischer (R-NE), Nay Flake (R-AZ), Nay

Franken (D-MN), Yea Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Graham (R-SC), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Heinrich (D-NM), Yea Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay Heller (R-NV), Nay Hirono (D-HI), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johanns (R-NE), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Yea Johnson (R-WI), Nay Kaine (D-VA), Yea King (I-ME), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Yea Manchin (D-WV), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Merkley (D-OR), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Moran (R-KS), Nay

Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Paul (R-KY), Nay Portman (R-OH), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay Risch (R-ID), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schatz (D-HI), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Scott (R-SC), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Warren (D-MA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---54
Baldwin (D-WI) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Donnelly (D-IN) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC)	Harkin (D-IA) Heinrich (D-NM) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD)	Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Toomey (R-PA) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---46
Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX)	Enzi (R-WY) Fischer (R-NE) Flake (R-AZ) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Heitkamp (D-ND) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (R-WI) Lee (R-UT) McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS)	Murkowski (R-AK) Paul (R-KY) Portman (R-OH) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Scott (R-SC) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:	Sessions (R-AL), Nay	Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:	Begich (D-AK), Nay	Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:	Flake (R-AZ), Nay	McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas:	Boozman (R-AR), Nay	Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Yea	Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:	Bennet (D-CO), Yea	Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:	Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea	Murphy (D-CT), Yea
Delaware:	Carper (D-DE), Yea	Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida:	Nelson (D-FL), Yea	Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Georgia:	Chambliss (R-GA), Nay	Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:	Hirono (D-HI), Yea	Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:	Crapo (R-ID), Nay	Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:	Durbin (D-IL), Yea	Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Indiana:	Coats (R-IN), Nay	Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Iowa:	Grassley (R-IA), Nay	Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:	Moran (R-KS), Nay	Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:	McConnell (R-KY), Nay	Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:	Landrieu (D-LA), Yea	Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:	Collins (R-ME), Yea	King (I-ME), Yea
Maryland:	Cardin (D-MD), Yea	Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:	Cowan (D-MA), Yea	Warren (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:	Levin (D-MI), Yea	Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:	Franken (D-MN), Yea	Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:	Cochran (R-MS), Nay	Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:	Blunt (R-MO), Nay	McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:	Baucus (D-MT), Nay	Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:	Fischer (R-NE), Nay	Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nevada:	Heller (R-NV), Nay	Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire:	Ayotte (R-NH), Nay	Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:	Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea	Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:	Heinrich (D-NM), Yea	Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York:	Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea	Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:	Burr (R-NC), Nay	Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota:	Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay	Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Ohio:	Brown (D-OH), Yea	Portman (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma:	Coburn (R-OK), Nay	Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:	Merkley (D-OR), Yea	Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:	Casey (D-PA), Yea	Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:	Reed (D-RI), Yea	Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:	Graham (R-SC), Nay	Scott (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:	Johnson (D-SD), Yea	Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:	Alexander (R-TN), Nay	Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:	Cornyn (R-TX), Nay	Cruz (R-TX), Nay
Utah:	Hatch (R-UT), Nay	Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:	Leahy (D-VT), Yea	Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:	Kaine (D-VA), Yea	Warner (D-VA), Yea
Washington:	Cantwell (D-WA), Yea	Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:	Manchin (D-WV), Yea	Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:	Baldwin (D-WI), Yea	Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Wyoming:	Barrasso (R-WY), Nay	Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Abortion is the Issue

Most of my family and many of my friends are conservative evangelicals.  That is a function of where I live: a state where Southern Baptists predominate.  Sad to say, most are one issue voters and that issue is abortion because their church tells them you are not a Christian if you do not want the government to end legal abortions. I belonged to evangelical church for many years, even though I was a liberal Christian.  My evangelical church narrowed its beliefs until there was no place for me.  Evangelicals in general seemed to me to have become less accepting.  I  moved to another denomination where my views are accepted, but not necessarily believed by all.

I do not know when a clump of cells changes to a person.  I personally would never have had an abortion unless my life was  in danger.  At my age now, the question is moot.  At some point in a pregnancy, I believe it is morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy because the fetus has acquired a soul.  However, I do not believe I have the right to impose my personal belief about abortion on others.  I certainly do not believe that the government has any right to impose anyone's religious beliefs about abortion on others.  I am pro-choice and anti-government interference.

Conservative evangelicals ignore the science of biology.  Theirs is an anti-intellectual mindset.  From their viewpoint, a fertilized egg has acquired a soul and therefore should not be destroyed.  Never mind that studies have shown that over 70% of all fertilized eggs do not implant during a woman's lifetime.  I do not think that God is wasting 70% of all souls.  The God I know is not so capricious.

I want to stress that conservative evangelicals have been taught that ensoulment begins when sperm meets egg by their churches for so long that it is accepted as fact.  I have had discussions on this issue with my family members and friends.  There is absolutely no reasoning with them.  I lose friends from such discussion.  My family members assume I am not a Christian and pray for my salvation.

Abortion is the single issue that always determines how conservative evangelicals vote.  If the abortion stance of all the candidates is the same, then conservative evangelicals will  choose who to vote for on the basis of other issues.   Evangelicals will knowingly vote against their own economic self-interests to choose a candidate who is anti-abortion.  I do not think that will change in 2012.

Could Jesus Vote in 2012?

Many states have enacted a law to require a photo ID before you can vote. Republicans say a photo ID prevents voter fraud, but statistics show that voter fraud is almost nonexistent. The true purpose of a voter ID law is to disenfranchise the old, the poor and the disabled; all of whom would not vote as Republicans want.

Why do I believe this?

Because I was raised in Texas and remember the poll tax. My Yankee grandmother moved to Texas with my native Texan mother after WWII. My grandmother was shocked to discover she had to pay to vote. I can remember my mother explaining the pernicious nature of the poll tax. The poll tax was designed to keep the poor and especially African Americans from voting. The poll tax was successful.

The 24th amendment to the constitution of the United States was passed to end the poll tax. President Lyndon Johnson said, "There can be no one too poor to vote." Republicans want to put lie to that.

Now, to vote you will need a driver's license or state photo ID to vote. Proponents of the Voter ID law say that these ID's are now free.  These ID's are not available at the corner grocer.  You  must be able to go to your local driver's license office and wait a considerable length of time to have your photo taken for the ID.  If you are old, infirm or poor, especially if you don't have a car, this becomes a daunting task. Just as in the past, when the poll tax could only be purchased in the courthouse downtown, now the modern poll tax will be just as hard to access for the portion of the population that Republicans want to disenfranchise.

Photo by Dan Young Wausau Daily Herald

Many of the disenfranchised may lack the documentation necessary to get a photo ID.  In one Wisconsin case, an elderly woman who has voted for years and served in public office lacks the proper documentation and will have to go to court to get it at considerable cost.  My own paternal grandmother did not have a birth certificate because she was born on a farm in rural Wisconsin.

Jesus told us that "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me".  When we deprive the poor, the disabled, the ex-convict ,the elderly of the right to vote, we deprive Jesus.  In 2012, could Jesus vote in your state?.

Could Jesus Vote in Texas?

Photo by pncsmith

The Texas Senate enacted a law to require a photo ID before you can vote. The majority says it is to prevent voter fraud. This, of course, is not the purpose. The purpose is to disenfranchise the old, the poor and the disabled; all of whom would not vote as the majority in the Senate desires. The House is now considering the bill.

Why do I believe this?

Because I was raised in Texas and remember the poll tax. My Yankee grandmother moved to Texas with my native Texan mother after WWII. My grandmother was shocked to discover she had to pay to vote. I can remember my mother explaining the pernicious nature of the poll tax. The poll tax was designed to keep the poor and especially African Americans from voting. The poll tax was successful.

The 24th amendment to the constitution of the United States was passed to end the poll tax. President Lyndon Johnson, a Texan, said, "There can be no one too poor to vote." The Texas Senate is determined to put lie to that. Voter identification is a Republican scam to reduce the number of voters more likely to vote Democratic.

Now, to vote you will need a driver's license or state photo ID to vote. This means you must be able to pay for those documents. In addition, you must be able to go to your local driver's license office and wait a considerable length of time to have your photo taken. If you are old, infirm or poor, especially if you don't have a car, this becomes a daunting task. Just as in the past, when the poll tax could only be purchased in the courthouse downtown, now the modern poll tax will be just as hard to access for the portion of the population that the majority of our Senate want to disenfranchise.

Texans should be ashamed, but like their senators, too many would rather not see these people vote. "Afterall, if these people were fit to vote, they could get an ID, " is now the mantra.

Jesus said what we do to the least of these, we do to Him. Could Jesus vote in Texas?

Proposition 1 on the March 2, 2010 Ballot

The Texas Republican party has placed five propositions on their March 2, 2010, primary ballot.  These propositions are non-binding.  The propositions are not amendments to the Texas Constitution.

The first proposition is as follows:
Ballot Proposition #1: Photo ID
The Texas legislature should make it a priority to protect the integrity of our election process by enacting legislation that requires voters to provide valid photo identification in order to cast a ballot in any and all elections conducted in the State of Texas.
YES or NO

I wrote about this previously in this blog when the legislature considered making people get a photo ID to vote.  See Could Jesus Vote in Texas?   

A Brown University study cataloged the negative effects of the introduction of photo ID's. The following is the last paragraph in their study.

"In 2004, despite higher white registration levels in voter ID states, the net effect was a substantial reduction in voter turnout. The reduction cut across racial and ethnic lines, but disproportionately affected blacks and Hispanics. It also disproportionately diminished electoral participation by citizens with lower income and education, tenants, and people who move more frequently. These groups already stand out for lower participation, and voter ID has the consequence of further reducing their engagement with the electoral system. In our view the selectivity of these suppressive impacts is their most objectionable feature. But even aside from placing a greater burden on some groups than on others, this is a policy that has not been shown to have any benefits. If reversing this policy in the 20 states that implemented it in 2004 could have increased overall turnout by registered voters by 1.6 million — from a rate of 67.7% to 70.3% — that is a strong argument in itself."

 The Texas Attorney has spent $1.4 million in 2 years to find 26 cases of voter fraud. He uncovered no grand fraud schemes.  Most of these cases involved technical infractions where someone carried a properly marked mail-in ballot to the mailbox for elderly people.  What a dastardly crime!   I suppose Attorney General Abbott will prosecute me if I take my 85 year old aunt's sealed ballot to the mailbox in her apartment complex.  That is what we are talking about.  In addition, Abbott only prosecutes Democrats by the way.  He ignores Republican misteps.

If you vote for Proposition 1, you are voting for suppression.  This proposition is designed to elicit a yes vote that will be used to further the Republican position on voter suppression.  Republicans know that those most affected are the elderly, the disabled, and minorities; people most likely to vote Democratic.  Anything that can be done to reduce their numbers aids Republican candidates.

Let's recall Texas sad history of voter suppression.  It was called the poll tax and was designed to suppress the black vote.  Obviously, the desire to suppress the vote of non-whites still exists.  The tea-baggers have openly called for literacy tests.  Tests used in the South to keep blacks from voting.  I expect Republicans to embrace that position.


I go into detail how needing a photo ID discourages the least among us from voting in my article Could Jesus Vote in Texas?

I will paraphrase Jesus. "I tell you the truth. You kept the least of these from voting, so you kept me from voting.."

VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION ONE!

Could Jesus Vote in Texas?

The Texas Senate plans to enact a law to require a photo ID before you can vote. The majority says it is to prevent voter fraud. This, of course, is not the purpose. The purpose is to disenfranchise the old, the poor and the disabled; all of whom would not vote as the majority in the Senate desires.

Why do I believe this?

Because I was raised in Texas and remember the poll tax. My yankee grandmother moved to Texas with my native Texan mother after WWII. My grandmother was shocked to discover she had to pay to vote. I can remember my mother explaining the pernicious nature of the poll tax. The poll tax was designed to keep the poor and especially African Americans from voting. The poll tax was successful.

The 24th amendment to the constitution of the United States was passed to end the poll tax. President Lyndon Johnson said, "There can be no one too poor to vote." The Texas Senate is determined to put lie to that.

Now, to vote you will need a driver's license or state photo ID to vote. This means you must be able to pay for those documents. In addition, you must be able to go to your local driver's license office and wait a considerable length of time to have your photo taken. If you are old, infirm or poor, especially if you don't have a car, this becomes a daunting task. Just as in the past, when the poll tax could only be purchased in the courthouse downtown, now the modern poll tax will be just as hard to access for the portion of the population that the majority of our Senate wants to disenfranchise.

Texans should be ashamed, but like their senators, too many would rather not see these people vote. "Afterall, if these people were fit to vote, they could get an ID, " is now the mantra.

Jesus said what we do to the least of these, we do to Him. Could Jesus vote in Texas?


Photo by trainmn74

Senator Clinton, Drop-out, and Senator Obama, Drop-out

I have grown weary of the media and Obama's supporters constant chant of "Drop-out Hillary." Time and again, commentators whine that Senator Clinton cannot win, that the way they calculate she will not have as many delegates as Senator Obama by the time of the Democratic convention. What these pundits neglect to say is that Senator Obama cannot win either. By convention time, he may be ahead in delegates but he will not have enough to win the nomination without the vote of the superdelegates. Neither can win without the superdelegates.

Obama supporters are especially disingenuous, saying that for the good of the party, Senator Clinton should drop-out. The only good they are thinking of is their candidate's. The media parrots the Obama line. Many people in states that have not voted yet in the Democratic Party process want to be able to participate. Those people have a right to have their votes count, too. What do the Obama people fear? A dismal showing in the final primaries by their candidate? Is that why they want to disenfranchise so many?

I suggest that Senator Obama drop-out in the interest of the party. His unknowns are coming home to roost. By the time he reaches the main event, independents will be running to McCain. Let's put it bluntly, he is losing the independent white vote because of his association with a church that seems to have harbored anti-American sentiments. In the last week, three different people I know well, not Democrats, not Republicans, have told me that they can no longer support Obama. Everyone admired his speech on race, everyone thought it did not address the issue.

I can understand staying with a church despite the pastor, but that was not Senator Obama's explanation. He stayed because he had not heard the pastor's hate speech. Once he heard that speech, he did not leave because the pastor had retired. I would have argued that a church is not the pastor, that a church is its people. A church with wonderful people that tolerates an aging pastor is one scenario, a church that endorses the preaching of an intolerant pastor is another. I am not clear which describes Senator Obama's church.

All the pro-Obama pundits are saying that the Reverend Wright fiasco is over. I don't think so. I think that it is less important to Democrats than to independents and to Republicans fed up with George Bush. If Senator Obama is the nominee, I fear how his pastor's and his wife's words will be used against him. Yes, that is the other topic that comes up with the independents that I know, Mrs. Obama's statements. Sad to say, I think what people say to pollsters may not reflect how they will vote. We must wait for the next primary.

The Democratic Party has a process in place with which to select its nominee. The nominee is not the person that reaches the convention with the most votes in hand, the nominee is the person that collects 2024 votes at the convention. Let's wait for the actual vote.