Covers a growing list of members of Congress · more members being added · This page: five swing-district members · House votes Jan 3, 2025 – Sept 15, 2026
This page puts a politician's own promise next to the actual vote that tests it, and lets you decide for yourself. It follows a two-member sample scorecard with five more members of Congress, all from the closest districts in the country. On this page a promise does not have to be written down. If they said it out loud on a recording we can link, with a timestamp you can jump to, it counts. We do not tell you whether any of it is good or bad. We show you the two things side by side so you can see whether this person votes the way you would.
Governors and state attorneys general now have promise scorecards too. Look up your address or ZIP in the voter tool and open the governor or attorney general card under “Your state officials.”
We wanted the districts where the promises have to be specific, because the voters can actually throw the member out. So we used a public, checkable measure rather than our own judgment: the narrowest winning margins in the November 2024 House elections, and then kept only the people who were new to Congress — first sworn in on January 3, 2025 — because a new member's campaign promises are the ones with no earlier record muddying them.
Inside Elections published the ranked list of the closest 2024 House races, and Ballotpedia keeps the full margin table. Running down that list and stopping at the first five first-term members gives you the five people on this page. Nobody was added or dropped for any other reason.
| Rank by closeness | District | Member | 2024 margin | On this page? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California 13 | Adam Gray (D) | 187 votes · about 0.03 pt | Yes |
| 2 | California 45 | Derek Tran (D) | 653 votes · about 0.2 pt | Yes |
| 3 | Iowa 1 | Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R) | 799 votes | No — in office since 2021, not a new member |
| 4 | Ohio 9 | Marcy Kaptur (D) | 2,382 votes | No — in office since 1983, not a new member |
| 5 | Colorado 8 | Gabe Evans (R) | 2,448 votes · about 0.8 pt | Yes |
| 6 | Pennsylvania 7 | Ryan Mackenzie (R) | about 4,062 votes · about 1.0 pt | Yes |
| 7 | Pennsylvania 8 | Rob Bresnahan Jr. (R) | about 1.6 pt | Already on the first page |
| 8 | New York 19 | Josh Riley (D) | about 2.2 pt | Yes |
Ranking and vote margins: Inside Elections, "The 7,309-Vote Election: How Republicans Held the House" · Ballotpedia's table of 2024 congressional races decided by ten points or fewer. The other common measure of a competitive district is the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which rates a district by how it votes for president compared with the country; all five of these districts sit near the middle of it. We used the margin because it is the plainest number and anyone can look it up.
That gives three Democrats and two Republicans. Added to the two members on the first page — one from each party — the full scorecard is four Democrats and three Republicans. That is what the measure produced. We did not tune it for balance, and if you extend the list further it keeps switching parties.
The first two members are on the original page: open the two-member scorecard. All seven use the same rules, the same vote file, and the same five answers.
All five of these members appear in every House roll call in our local records for this Congress — 669 recorded House votes between January 3, 2025 and September 15, 2026 — so no vote had to be guessed at. Every roll call number on this page links to the official House Clerk record.
Democrat · California's 13th district · in office since January 3, 2025 · won by 187 votes, the closest House race in the country
7 promises: 1 mixed, 1 partly tested, 3 no vote yet, 2 can't be tested. Tap a promise for the quote, the source and the reasoning.
Every one of Gray's seven promises here is spoken. That is not a stylistic choice — his campaign's issues page listed things he had already done in the state legislature rather than things he would do in Congress, so under the old written-only rule he would have had almost nothing on this page. All seven come from one recording: the 90-minute district debate at the State Theatre in Modesto, hosted by the Central Valley Journalism Collaborative, the Maddy Institute and the UC Merced CAP Center, recorded October 25, 2024 and posted October 26. Open the recording · The Merced FOCUS write-up with the same video
| The promise | Kept? | See the vote |
|---|---|---|
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNothing on the floor has cut Social Security or Medicare | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "Protecting Social Security and Medicare is an absolute 100% line in the sand… we cannot have people who've been made a promise for their security and their elderly years not receive what they paid for." "We are not going to cut Social Security and Medicare for any American. That is money folks earned and we need to keep our commitments." Modesto district debate, October 25, 2024, at 1:02:20 and 1:04:35. The vote that tests it There isn't one yet. We checked all 669 recorded House votes from January 3, 2025 to September 15, 2026. Nothing has come to the floor that raises the retirement age or cuts a Social Security or Medicare benefit. Why this answer Nothing has made him choose, so the promise is untested — which is worth saying rather than quietly dropping. The nearest thing: the 2025 reconciliation law (H.R. 1) changed Medicaid, not Medicare or Social Security. He voted against it twice. That is promise 2. |
||
| Partly tested | H.R. 1 — the big tax and spending lawHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "Note that John doesn't bring up the massive tax cuts they've given to some of the wealthiest people in this country, which is an obvious place to start… let's reverse those tax cuts." Modesto district debate, October 25, 2024, at 1:04:08. The vote that tests it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — roll call 145, May 22, 2025, passed 215–214; then roll call 190, July 3, 2025, passed 218–214. A yes meant: pass a single large tax-and-spending law that extended the 2017
tax rates and added new deductions.
A no meant: reject that package.
He voted NO both times. Why this answer He said the 2017 tax cuts should be reversed. When the law extending them came to the floor, he voted against it both times (roll calls 145 and 190). That matches the promise as far as it goes. But voting against an extension is not the same as voting to reverse the cuts, and no bill to repeal them has come to the floor. So only half of this promise has been tested. |
||
| Can't be tested | Not one bill — his whole voting recordWent against most House Democrats on 109 of 625 party-split votes | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "I never put the Democratic Party before our community, and I won't do it in Washington D.C." Modesto district debate closing statement, October 25, 2024, at 1:29:04. The vote that tests it This one is not a single bill — it is the whole record, so we counted it. On every recorded House vote in this Congress where his own party split clearly one way, we checked whether he went the other way. Adam Gray broke with most House Democrats on 109 of 625 such votes — about 17 in
every 100.
For comparison, in the same file: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez 141 of 657 (about
21 in 100), Josh Riley 54 of 654 (about 8), Derek Tran 40 of 661 (about 6), Ryan Mackenzie 36 of
653 (about 5), Rob Bresnahan 36 of 660 (about 5), Gabe Evans 19 of 666 (about 3).
Counted from the same local file of official House roll calls used everywhere else on this page, January 3, 2025 to September 15, 2026. Votes where his party was itself evenly split are excluded, because there was no party line to break. Why this answer Whether a vote put the party ahead of the community is a judgment, and votes can't settle it. What we can count is this: he voted against most House Democrats on 109 of 625 party-split votes, about 17 in every 100. That is the second-highest rate of the seven members on these two sample pages. The number shows he does not always vote with his party. It can't show that any vote served the community, and it can't prove "never". What this number is not: it does not say whether any particular vote was right, and a member can break with the party on small bills while staying with it on big ones. It only measures how often, not how much. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetThe Women’s Health Protection Act has never reached the floor | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "A woman's free to choose her own reproductive health care regardless of what state she lives in. That's just a fundamental right. That's what I'm for." Modesto district debate, October 25, 2024, at 35:46. The vote that tests it There isn't one. The bill that would write Roe v. Wade back into federal law — the Women's Health Protection Act, H.R. 12 — was introduced on June 24, 2025 and has never reached the floor. Two related votes are not tests of this promise and we are not counting them: the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (roll call 27, January 23, 2025), which he voted against, is about care after a birth, not about access; and no national abortion ban has been voted on. Why this answer Nothing has come to the floor that makes him choose on this. One checkable fact while we wait: H.R. 12 has a public cosponsor list, and Adam Gray is not on it. That is not a vote and we are not scoring it — but it is the kind of thing worth knowing, and you can check the list yourself at the link above. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNo marriage bill has had a recorded House vote | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "I support equality and think that the federal government will have a policy, just like we've protected and passed here in California, to allow any Californian to marry whomever they choose." Modesto district debate, October 25, 2024, at 57:26. The vote that tests it There isn't one. No marriage bill of any kind has had a recorded House vote in this Congress. Why this answer The promise is real and dated, and the House simply has not voted on the subject. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 1949 — the LNG gas-export billHouse roll call 304 · November 20, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "We need to continue energy production in this country at high levels… which is why we have to widen our investments there, across the board." Modesto district debate, answering a question about gas prices, October 25, 2024, at 1:05:29. The votes that test it Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act (H.R. 1949) — roll call 304, November 20, 2025. He voted YES. GRID Power Act (H.R. 1047) — roll call 279, September 18, 2025. He did not vote. A yes meant: speed up federal approval for exporting natural gas, and speed
up connecting new power generation to the grid.
A no meant: leave the existing approval processes in place.
Why this answer He voted for the gas-export bill, which points the way his promise pointed, but he was absent for the other big production vote, so the record is incomplete rather than contradictory. What this does not test: neither bill lowers the price at a California pump, which is what he was actually asked about. There has been no federal gas-tax or fuel-price vote to test that half. |
||
| Can't be tested | No vote can test thisCommittee oversight work produces no roll calls | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "Hard work is what Congress refuses to do, because they're more interested in messaging bills and, you know, press conferences at election time." Modesto district debate closing statement, October 25, 2024, at 1:28:37. Earlier in the debate, at 44:17, he makes the same point about the audit committee he chaired in the California legislature. The vote that tests it None, and none is coming. Committee oversight work is hearings, audits and letters. It does not produce roll calls, so a vote file cannot measure it either way. Why this answer This is a real, dated promise about how he would spend his time, and votes are the wrong instrument for it — so we are saying that instead of pinning it on a bill that nearly fits. |
||
Democrat · California's 45th district · in office since January 3, 2025 · won by 653 votes, the second-closest House race in the country
7 promises: 4 kept, 1 mixed, 1 no vote yet, 1 can't be tested. Tap a promise for the quote, the source and the reasoning.
Sources used for Tran: his campaign issues page, read from the Internet Archive copy of October 31, 2024 (view the snapshot), and the Rossmoor Homeowners Association candidate forum recorded September 28, 2024 (open the recording).
| The promise | Kept? | See the vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | H.R. 1 — the big tax and spending law, which changed coverageHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "He'll take on the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies to rein in the high cost of healthcare and prescription drugs and expand Medicare so that everyone has access to quality, affordable health care." Campaign issues page, derektranforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 31, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — roll call 145, May 22, 2025, and roll call 190, July 3, 2025. A yes meant: pass the tax-and-spending law, which included Medicaid work
requirements and new eligibility checks.
A no meant: send it back rather than pass it in that form.
He voted NO both times. Why this answer The biggest health-coverage vote of the term was this law, which the Congressional Budget Office scored as leaving millions fewer people covered, and he voted against it both times — the direction his promise pointed. What this does not test: "expand Medicare" is the active half, and no bill expanding Medicare has reached the floor. The CBO coverage figures as reported are here; supporters of the law dispute that reading. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 7008 — the ban on members trading stocksHouse roll call 280 · July 22, 2026 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Derek will fight to end this culture of corruption in our politics. He supports efforts to limit the influence and power of lobbyists, refuses to take donations from corporate PACs and other special interests, and supports strong campaign finance reforms." Campaign issues page, derektranforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 31, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act — roll call 280, July 22, 2026, passed 232–198. A yes meant: bar members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children
from buying individual stocks, and require public notice before they sell — and, because House
Republicans attached it to the same bill, also create a federal voter ID requirement.
A no meant: reject the package, voter ID included.
He voted YES. Most House Democrats voted no; he was one of thirteen who did not. Why this answer He promised to take on corruption in politics, and he voted for the stock-trading ban even though almost everyone in his party voted against the package it came in. His own words on the part he did not like: two weeks later he and Rep. Lee wrote to the Senate asking for the voter ID language to be taken out, saying the bill "includes needlessly onerous voter ID provisions that stand to undermine rather [than] uphold election integrity." (his office's release, August 3, 2026.) So his position is that he took the stock ban and is trying to strip the rest. You can decide whether voting yes on a two-part bill counts as backing both parts. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 1 — the law that raised the SALT deduction capHouse roll call 145 · May 22, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "We got to make sure that people who need these breaks the most, the homeowners, they should be able to deduct their taxes fully and not be capped out. And that's the problem with the Trump SALT tax caps that are in place today." Rossmoor Homeowners Association candidate forum, September 28, 2024, at 5:03. The vote that tests it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — roll call 145, May 22, 2025, and roll call 190, July 3, 2025. The official summary of the bill the House passed says it "increases the limitation on the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes (commonly known as the SALT deduction cap)." A yes meant: pass the whole law — raising the SALT cap along with everything
else in it.
A no meant: reject the whole law, raised SALT cap included.
He voted NO both times. Why this answer The only law that raised the cap he campaigned against was one he voted against, and no separate SALT bill has come to the floor — so he has not voted for the relief he promised, and he has not voted against it on its own either. What we could not find: a statement from Rep. Tran himself explaining how he weighed the SALT change against the rest of that bill. If he made one, it is not on his official site where we looked, so we are not putting words in his mouth. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 1 — the law extending the 2017 tax ratesHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "The rich can afford to pay more taxes. I think there's not enough fairness in our tax system… the super uber wealthy, I'm talking about the billionaires out there, and paying their fair share — that's something we need to address." Rossmoor Homeowners Association candidate forum, September 28, 2024, at 4:35. The vote that tests it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — roll calls 145 and 190. He voted NO both times. A yes meant: extend the 2017 tax rates and add new deductions.
A no meant: reject that package.
Why this answer He said the tax system tilts toward the very wealthy, and he voted against the law extending the rates he was criticising. What this does not test: no bill raising taxes on high earners has come to the floor, so the active half of the promise has not been tested. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 5408 — the Faster Labor Contracts ActHouse roll call 216 · June 9, 2026 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Derek is committed to standing with workers… Derek will fight to make the minimum wage a living wage so families can keep up with rising costs, advocate for safer working conditions and ensure all workers can secure affordable housing for their families and a secure retirement." Campaign issues page, derektranforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 31, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act — roll call 216, June 9, 2026, passed 230–193. A yes meant: put legal deadlines on employers to start and finish a first
union contract, with mediation and then binding arbitration if they do not.
A no meant: leave first-contract bargaining as it is.
He voted YES. Why this answer The one union-bargaining bill that reached the floor went the way he said he would go, and he voted for it. What this does not test: the minimum wage. No House vote on raising it has been held in this Congress — see promise 6's note for why we are not stretching other bills onto it. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNo background-check or assault-weapons bill has had a vote | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "He will take on the NRA by fighting for common sense gun safety laws like universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons." Campaign issues page, derektranforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 31, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it There isn't one. No background-check bill and no assault-weapons bill has had a recorded House vote in this Congress. Why this answer Nothing has come to the floor that makes him choose, so this stays on the list untested. |
||
| Can't be tested | No vote can test thisHow often he flies home produces no roll call | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "I anticipate that I'm going to be coming back every week. I'm not moving my family out to Washington D.C. I'll be on that plane Thursday night flying back to California, back to this district." Rossmoor Homeowners Association candidate forum, September 28, 2024, at 4:09. The vote that tests it None exists. Where a member sleeps and how often they come home does not produce a roll call. Why this answer It is a specific, dated, checkable promise — just not by this method, and we would rather say so than score it off something unrelated. |
||
Republican · Colorado's 8th district · in office since January 3, 2025 · won by 2,448 votes, about 0.8 of a point
7 promises: 2 kept, 2 mixed, 3 no vote yet. Tap a promise for the quote, the source and the reasoning.
Sources used for Evans: his campaign's four issue pages, read from Internet Archive copies made before the election (American Prosperity · American Security · American Education · Defend American Values), and the 9NEWS district debate recorded October 9, 2024 (open the recording).
| The promise | Kept? | See the vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | S. 2 — the Secure America Act, border and CBP fundingHouse roll call 214 · June 9, 2026 · he also voted for H.R. 1 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "I will make it a priority in Congress to: (1) relaunch construction of the border wall in areas where it makes sense, (2) restore the 'remain in Mexico' policy… (7) hire more border patrol agents and immigration judges." Campaign issues page "American Security," electgabeevans.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 21, 2024. View the snapshot The votes that test it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — roll calls 145 (May 22, 2025) and 190 (July 3, 2025). Its official summary says section 60001 "provides funding to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for construction, installation, or improvement to barriers; access roads; detection technology… along U.S. borders," and section 60002 funds CBP personnel. S. 2, the Secure America Act — roll call 214, June 9, 2026, passed 214–212. A second law funding CBP and ICE through 2029. A yes meant: spend federal money on border barriers, border technology and
more enforcement staff.
A no meant: do not.
He voted YES on all three. Roll call 145 · Roll call 190 · Roll call 214 · S. 2 on Congress.gov Why this answer He said he would fund barrier construction and more agents, and both times money for exactly that came to the floor he voted for it. What this does not test: "remain in Mexico" is a policy the executive branch sets, not something the House has voted on. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNo roll call reduces a Social Security benefit | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "We must also keep the promises we made to our seniors. Folks who worked their whole lives should not have their social security reduced, and I will vote to protect social security." Campaign issues page "American Prosperity," electgabeevans.com — Internet Archive snapshot, November 4, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it There isn't one. Across all 669 recorded House votes in our file, the only Social Security bills are administrative — for example the Social Security Child Protection Act (roll call 306, December 1, 2025) and the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act (roll call 283, July 23, 2026), which reauthorises voluntary disability work trials and explicitly may not reduce a participant's income. Neither reduces anybody's benefit, so neither tests the promise. Why this answer Nothing has come to the floor that would make him choose between protecting a benefit and cutting it. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNo national abortion ban has been voted on | |
|
The promise, in his words — written and spoken "Since the US Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban." Campaign issues page "Defend American Values," electgabeevans.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 30, 2024. View the snapshot "I support exceptions for rape, for incest, for life of the mother. And I don't support a national abortion ban." 9NEWS Colorado 8th district debate, October 9, 2024, at 20:07. He said it on camera three weeks before he said it on the website, which is the point of widening the rule. The vote that tests it There isn't one. No national abortion ban has been voted on in this Congress. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (roll call 27, January 23, 2025), which he voted for, sets care requirements after a live birth and is not a ban, so we are not counting it as a test either way. Why this answer He has not been asked to make this choice on the floor, so the promise stands untested. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 1 — the law that changed Medicaid coverageHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Increase the number of people who have access to usable and affordable healthcare by putting doctors and patients back in charge and reducing middlemen and government bureaucrats." "I truly appreciate how important it is for all Americans and Coloradans to have access to quality healthcare and insurance coverage, including for pre-existing conditions. Legislation must include protections for pre-existing conditions." Campaign issues page "American Prosperity," electgabeevans.com — Internet Archive snapshot, November 4, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 1, the 2025 reconciliation bill — roll calls 145 and 190. A yes meant: pass the law, including Medicaid work requirements and new
eligibility checks.
A no meant: send it back rather than pass it in that form.
He voted YES both times. Why this answer He promised to increase the number of people with access to affordable coverage, and he voted for a law the Congressional Budget Office scored as leaving millions fewer people covered — while nothing in that law touched the pre-existing-condition protections he also promised to keep. His answer, in his own words: his office says the bill "delivers real tangible benefits for Americans… all while protecting Medicaid for the country's most vulnerable," and that "this pro-family, pro-America bill isn't just good policy, it follows through on promises made to working families" (his statement on the May vote · his statement on the July vote). Earlier he had said Colorado "is using taxpayer dollars to pay for free health care for illegal immigrants and dead people" (his Medicaid statement, February 26, 2025), so his position is that the coverage figures count people the program was not meant to cover. The CBO numbers as reported are here. Both readings are on this page; the disagreement is real and you can decide which one you accept. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 5214 — the D.C. cash bail billHouse roll call 298 · November 19, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "I support putting repeat violent offenders behind bars, ending reckless 'cashless bail' policies, and cracking down on fentanyl dealers who prey on our kids." Campaign issues page "American Security," electgabeevans.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 21, 2024. View the snapshot The votes that test it H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act — roll call 298, November 19, 2025, passed 237–179. Requires detention before trial for violent and dangerous crimes in D.C. and requires a secured money bond for certain other offences. H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act — roll call 171, May 14, 2026. Requires the Justice Department to publish an annual list of places that release people charged with serious offences without money bail. He voted YES on both. Why this answer Both times a cashless-bail bill reached the floor he voted the way he said he would. Worth knowing: both bills passed with votes from both parties — all seven members on these two sample pages voted yes on both — so this was not a close call for anyone here. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 1047 — the GRID Power Act, electricity supplyHouse roll call 279 · September 18, 2025 · plus the LNG bill and H.R. 1 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "I support an 'all of the above' energy policy – oil, gas, nuclear, renewables, geothermal – without subsidizing or favoring certain industries and companies. The Biden Administration's policy of picking winners and losers by punishing oil and gas industries while propping up favored industries through expensive tax credits and subsidies must stop." Campaign issues page "American Prosperity," electgabeevans.com — Internet Archive snapshot, November 4, 2024. View the snapshot The votes that test it GRID Power Act (H.R. 1047) — roll call 279, September 18, 2025, and Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act (H.R. 1949) — roll call 304, November 20, 2025. He voted YES on both. H.R. 1 — roll calls 145 and 190. Its official summary lists the repeal of the investment tax credit for "qualified energy property (e.g., solar, fuel cell, geothermal, biogas, and microgrid controller property)." He voted YES. Roll call 279 · Roll call 304 · H.R. 1 and its official summary Why this answer He voted to end subsidies, which is the "without subsidizing or favoring" half of what he said — and the subsidies he voted to end were for geothermal and renewables, two of the five sources he listed in "all of the above." Where the disagreement sits: if you read his promise as "stop government from picking winners," these votes keep it. If you read it as "treat all five sources the same," they do not. Both readings come from the same sentence, which is why this is marked mixed rather than kept or broke. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNo federal school-choice or Department of Education bill has had a vote | |
|
The promise, in his words — written and spoken "I support school choice and educational savings accounts… The current U.S. Department of Education is a bloated bureaucracy. I will work to break down this bureaucracy and empower families and students." Campaign issues page "American Education," electgabeevans.com — Internet Archive snapshot, November 4, 2024. View the snapshot "I will always be a very firm believer that allowing parents, families more choice, putting them along with teachers back in control of education rather than bureaucrats, is the way that we move our education system forward." 9NEWS Colorado 8th district debate, October 9, 2024, at 22:51. The vote that tests it There isn't one. No federal school-choice, voucher or education-savings-account bill has had a recorded House vote in this Congress, and no bill abolishing or restructuring the Department of Education has either. The one education bill he did vote on — the DETERRENT Act, roll call 83, March 27, 2025 — is about universities disclosing foreign gifts, which tests nothing here. Why this answer The promise is specific and on the record twice, and the House has not given him anything to vote on. |
||
Republican · Pennsylvania's 7th district · in office since January 3, 2025 · won by about 4,062 votes, roughly one point
7 promises: 3 kept, 2 mixed, 1 no vote yet, 1 can't be tested. Tap a promise for the quote, the source and the reasoning.
Sources used for Mackenzie: his campaign's "12 Priorities" page, read from the Internet Archive copy of September 1, 2024 (view the snapshot), and the Blue Ridge Communications TV13 district debate recorded September 16, 2024 (open the recording).
| The promise | Kept? | See the vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | S. 2 — the Secure America Act, border and CBP fundingHouse roll call 214 · June 9, 2026 · he also voted for H.R. 1 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Secure our nation's border and finish building the wall." Campaign priorities page, mackenzieforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, September 1, 2024. View the snapshot The votes that test it H.R. 1 — roll calls 145 and 190, which fund barrier construction and CBP staff (section 60001 of the official summary), and S. 2, the Secure America Act — roll call 214, June 9, 2026, which funds CBP and ICE through 2029. He voted YES on all three. Why this answer Every time money for the border barrier came to the floor, he voted for it. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNo roll call reduces a Social Security or Medicare benefit | |
|
The promise, in his words — written and spoken "Stop cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Uphold these sacred commitments to our seniors by ensuring no reductions in their benefits." Campaign priorities page, mackenzieforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, September 1, 2024. View the snapshot "On the federal level we need to do everything we possibly can to protect benefits like Social Security and Medicare that those individuals have paid into and that they earned and deserve. So I will do that every single day." Blue Ridge Communications TV13 debate, September 16, 2024, at 36:07. The vote that tests it There isn't one. No vote in the 669 recorded House votes in our file reduces a Social Security or Medicare benefit. Why this answer Nothing has made him choose, so this is untested — the same answer we gave the two members on the first page, for the same reason. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 1 — the law that created the no-tax-on-tips deductionHouse roll call 145 · May 22, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "As a federal representative we can continue to lower taxes on people, make sure we're putting money back in their pockets. That's why I support no taxes on tips and no taxes on Social Security. That would directly put money back into people's pockets." Blue Ridge Communications TV13 debate, September 16, 2024, at 15:39. The vote that tests it H.R. 1 — roll calls 145 and 190. The official summary of the House-passed bill says section 110101 "establishes a new above-the-line tax deduction, through 2028, for qualified tip income" for people earning under about $160,000. A yes meant: create the tips deduction, along with everything else in the
law.
A no meant: reject the package.
He voted YES both times. Why this answer He voted for the bill that created the tips deduction, which is half of what he said — but no vote has removed the tax on Social Security benefits, so the other half of the sentence has not happened. The detail that matters: a deduction is not the same as "no taxes on tips," and it runs out after 2028. We are quoting the official bill summary rather than either party's description of it, so you can read the actual wording at the link. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 7008 — the ban on members trading stocksHouse roll call 280 · July 22, 2026 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Implement term limits for elected officials and bureaucrats. Ban Members of Congress from trading stocks based on insider information. Require transparency in grant funding to end conflicts of interest…" Campaign priorities page, mackenzieforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, September 1, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act — roll call 280, July 22, 2026, passed 232–198. A yes meant: bar members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children
from buying individual stocks, require public notice before sales — and create a federal voter ID
requirement, which Republicans attached to the same bill.
A no meant: reject the package.
He voted YES. Official House roll call 280 · The bill and its official summary Why this answer He said members should not be allowed to trade on inside information, and he voted for the bill that bans members from buying individual stocks at all. What this does not test: the term-limits half of the same promise. A constitutional amendment for term limits has not had a floor vote, so that part is still untested. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 1 — the big tax and spending lawHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025 · plus the Rescissions Act | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Reduce wasteful government spending that is driving inflation – increasing the costs of food, energy, and housing on every American." "Cut and eliminate taxes that are taking money out of the pockets of American workers and impeding economic growth; just merely holding the line is not enough." Campaign priorities page, mackenzieforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, September 1, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 1 — roll calls 145 and 190. He voted YES both times. He also voted YES on the Rescissions Act (H.R. 4, roll call 168, June 12, 2025), which cancelled money Congress had already approved. Why this answer He voted to cut taxes and he voted to cancel already-approved spending, which is both halves of what he said — but the Congressional Budget Office scored the tax law itself as adding roughly $3.4 trillion to deficits over 2025–2034, which pulls against the "reduce wasteful spending" half. Where that number comes from: the CBO estimate as reported by FactCheck.org and the American Hospital Association's summary of the CBO letter. Supporters argue the CBO method understates growth; that argument is theirs to make and you can weigh it. |
||
| Can't be tested | No vote can test thisNo national abortion ban has come to the House floor | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken "I also do support the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. During my time as state representative I've always voted in the bipartisan majority when issues around women's reproductive health come up." Blue Ridge Communications TV13 debate, September 16, 2024, at 30:27. His opponent disputed this on the same stage, citing his state-legislature votes; both are on the tape at the same link. The vote that tests it None, and none is likely. A promise about which exceptions a ban would contain can only be tested by a vote on a ban, and no national abortion ban has come to the House floor in this Congress. Why this answer We are marking this untestable rather than untested, because the vote it needs is one that would have to exist first — and we are not scoring it off the Born-Alive bill, which is about care after a birth. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 1949 — the LNG gas-export billHouse roll call 304 · November 20, 2025 · plus the GRID Power Act | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Support energy independence by encouraging American energy exploration, extraction, and production. Oppose cap-and-tax schemes that prioritize a radical climate agenda over the realities of safe, clean, affordable American energy." Campaign priorities page, mackenzieforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, September 1, 2024. View the snapshot The votes that test it GRID Power Act (H.R. 1047) — roll call 279, September 18, 2025, and Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act (H.R. 1949) — roll call 304, November 20, 2025. A yes meant: speed up connecting new power generation to the grid, and speed
up federal approval for exporting natural gas.
A no meant: leave the existing processes in place.
He voted YES on both. Why this answer Both production-and-export bills that reached the floor went the way he said he would go, and he voted for both. |
||
Democrat · New York's 19th district · in office since January 3, 2025 · won by about 2.2 points
7 promises: 3 kept, 2 mixed, 1 no vote yet, 1 can't be tested. Tap a promise for the quote, the source and the reasoning.
Sources used for Riley: his campaign's issues page, read from the Internet Archive copy of October 15, 2024 (view the snapshot), and the WNYT NewsChannel 13 district debate recorded October 11, 2024 (open the recording).
| The promise | Kept? | See the vote |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | H.R. 12 — the Women’s Health Protection ActNo floor vote — checked against the official cosponsor list, June 24, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken and written "I'm going to make a commitment to you: you send me to Congress, I will do what he has not done, I will sponsor the Women's Health Protection Act to put Roe v. Wade back into the law." WNYT NewsChannel 13 NY-19 debate, October 11, 2024, at 29:23. "Will sponsor the Women's Health Protection Act on day one to restore Roe v. Wade into federal law." Campaign issues page, joshrileyforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 15, 2024. View the snapshot The test This promise is about sponsoring a bill, not voting on one, so the check is the official cosponsor list rather than a roll call. The Women's Health Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 12) was introduced on June 24, 2025, and Josh Riley is recorded as a cosponsor on that same day. There has been no floor vote on it. Why this answer He said he would put his name on this bill and he put his name on it the day it was introduced. What this does not test: how he would vote if it ever reached the floor. Signing a bill and passing one are different things, and only the first has happened. |
||
| Can't be tested | No vote can test thisCampaign money is an FEC record, not a roll call | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken and written "I don't take corporate PAC money because my vote is not for sale. I'm pushing for term limits because I think we need fewer career politicians and more new ideas." WNYT NewsChannel 13 NY-19 debate opening statement, October 11, 2024, at 4:27. "Will never take a penny of corporate PAC money – because his vote will never be for sale; Supports term limits; and Will work to overturn Citizens United." Campaign issues page, joshrileyforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 15, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it None exists. Who a member accepts money from is a campaign finance question, recorded by the Federal Election Commission, not by the House Clerk. No roll call can confirm or contradict it. Why this answer It is a clear, dated, checkable promise — but the place to check it is his FEC filings, not a vote file, and we would rather say that than score it off something adjacent. What he has done that is on the record: in June 2025 his office announced he had cosponsored the TRUST in Congress Act on stock trading and a constitutional amendment for term limits (his release, June 27, 2025), and in June 2026 he introduced a package covering stock trading, corporate PAC bans, term limits and dark money (his release, June 10, 2026). Those are actions, not votes, so they are here as context rather than as the verdict. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 7008 — the stock ban, with voter ID attached to itHouse roll call 280, final passage · July 22, 2026 | |
|
The promise, in his words — spoken and written "We have got to get the corporate PAC money out of our politics and get back to a politics for people." WNYT NewsChannel 13 NY-19 debate, October 11, 2024, at 24:57. The stock-trading half is in his own words on his official site: "We need to change how this place works and who it works for, and I'm willing to take on the political establishment in both parties to do it." His own office's release announcing he had cosponsored a bill to bar members and their families from trading individual stocks, June 27, 2025. Read it The votes that test it H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act — two votes on the same day, July 22, 2026. Roll call 279, the motion to recommit (a motion to send the bill back to committee for changes) — failed. He voted YES. Roll call 280, final passage — passed 232–198. He voted NO. A yes on passage meant: bar members of Congress and their spouses and
dependent children from buying individual stocks and require public notice before sales — and create
a federal voter ID requirement, which was attached to the same bill.
A no on passage meant: reject the package, stock ban and voter ID
together.
Roll call 279 · Roll call 280 · The bill and its official summary Why this answer He had already put his name to a stock-trading ban, and he voted to send this version back for changes — and then, when it came up as written with the voter ID requirement attached, he voted against it. What we could not verify: Rep. Riley has publicly explained this vote, but the only copy we could reach is a social media post, and his official site did not return a statement at the page we checked. Rather than quote him second-hand, we are leaving his explanation out and telling you it exists. If you want the full picture, his office is the place to get it. Most House Democrats voted the way he did — 198 of them — and 13 voted the other way, including Derek Tran on this same page, who then wrote to the Senate asking for the voter ID language to be stripped. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 1 — the law extending the 2017 tax ratesHouse roll call 190, final passage · July 3, 2025 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "The Middle Class needs a tax cut; billionaires and big corporations don't… Require the wealthy and big corporations to pay their fair share so we can reduce the deficit and invest in necessary public services." Campaign issues page, joshrileyforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 15, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 1 — roll calls 145 and 190. He voted NO both times. A yes meant: extend the 2017 tax rates and add new deductions.
A no meant: reject that package.
Why this answer He said the 2017 rates favoured the wealthy and should not be the tax code, and he voted against the law that extended them. What this does not test: the same law also created new deductions for tips, overtime and car-loan interest, which are middle-class tax cuts by most readings. A no vote rejected those too. No standalone middle-class tax bill has come to the floor. |
||
| No vote yet | No vote tests this yetNo roll call reduces a Social Security or Medicare benefit | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Seniors have earned the right to retire with dignity. Josh will never cut a penny from Social Security or Medicare." Campaign issues page, joshrileyforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 15, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it There isn't one. No vote in our file reduces a Social Security or Medicare benefit. Why this answer Three of the seven members on these two sample pages made a version of this promise, and none of them has been asked to vote on it. |
||
| Yes | H.R. 5408 — the Faster Labor Contracts ActHouse roll call 216 · June 9, 2026 | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Josh knows that strong unions built a strong Middle Class… he believes we should make it easier to join a union and harder to bust one. Among other things, Josh supports: The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act." Campaign issues page, joshrileyforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 15, 2024. View the snapshot The vote that tests it H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act — roll call 216, June 9, 2026, passed 230–193. He voted YES. He also voted YES on the Protect America's Workforce Act (H.R. 2550, roll call 332, December 11, 2025), which passed with support from every member on this scorecard. A yes meant: put legal deadlines on first union contracts, with mediation and
then binding arbitration if the parties do not agree.
A no meant: leave first-contract bargaining as it is.
Why this answer The labour bill that reached the floor made first contracts easier to get, and he voted for it. What this does not test: the PRO Act itself, which he named. It has not had a floor vote. |
||
| Mixed | H.R. 29 — the Laken Riley Act, immigration detentionHouse roll call 6 · January 7, 2025 · plus S. 2 border funding | |
|
The promise, in his words — written "Hire new border agents and ensure law enforcement has the resources they need to secure the border and stop and deter illegal immigration; Hire more immigration judges so asylum claims are processed quickly, fairly, and accurately." Campaign issues page, joshrileyforcongress.com — Internet Archive snapshot, October 15, 2024. View the snapshot The votes that test it H.R. 29, the Laken Riley Act — roll call 6, January 7, 2025. He voted YES. S. 2, the Secure America Act — roll call 214, June 9, 2026, passed 214–212. Its official summary says it funds Customs and Border Protection "for personnel; border security, technology, and screening" and also funds Immigration and Customs Enforcement for personnel, transportation, detention facilities and 287(g) agreements with local police. He voted NO. A yes meant: fund both border staffing and interior immigration enforcement
through 2029, in one bill.
A no meant: reject the package, border hiring included.
Why this answer He voted for the first big immigration enforcement bill of the term, and against the bill that would have paid for the border agents he promised — a bill that also paid for interior enforcement he did not promise. Why this is mixed and not broke: the hiring he promised and the enforcement he did not were bundled into one yes-or-no question, so his single no cannot be read as a vote against border agents specifically. We could not find a statement from Rep. Riley himself on this vote, so we are not supplying a reason on his behalf. |
||
Sample scorecard, last updated September 20, 2026. It covers five members of the House and recorded House votes from January 3, 2025 through September 15, 2026; votes after that date are not reflected here. It is a sample, not a full record of any member. Tap a promise to open the quote, the source and the reasoning. The first two members are on the two-member sample scorecard.