What were the vote counts and party-line breakdowns for each 2025 House impeachment vote?

1. What the numbers were and what they mean

The decisive December 11 vote was 237 yeas to table, 140 nays, with 47 members recorded as “present” — a coalition that included 214 Republicans and 23 Democrats voting to table, while most Democrats either opposed tabling or chose “present” rather than a straight yea or nay ^{[1] [2] [3]}. That roll-call outcome killed Rep. Green’s H.Res.353-style effort in practice, because a successful motion to table prevents immediate consideration of the impeachment articles ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Party-line dynamics: Republican unity and Democratic division

Republicans voted almost uniformly to table in December — 214 GOP votes for tabling were decisive — while Democrats split into three blocs: 140 who opposed tabling (voted to advance), 23 who joined Republicans to table, and 47 who voted “present” as part of Democratic leadership’s strategy ^{[1] [3]}. Axios and The Hill report the same three-way split and emphasize that Democratic leaders intentionally signaled “present” to avoid aiding a partisan impeachment push while not aligning with Republicans to kill the motion outright ^{[1] [3]}.

3. How this compares to earlier House impeachment votes in 2025

An earlier floor action tied to Rep. Green occurred June 24, 2025, where the House voted to table an impeachment motion 344–79 — a much larger margin and different partisan arithmetic recorded in the official clerk’s roll ^[4]. That June vote demonstrates that the December action reflected a narrower, more politically fraught calculus than the earlier summer tabling ^[4].

4. Why many Democrats chose “present” or split their votes

Democratic leaders publicly framed “present” votes as a way to treat impeachment as “a sacred constitutional vehicle” and to avoid legitimizing a snap, partisan process while signaling disapproval of the president’s conduct; leadership — including Hakeem Jeffries, Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar — announced they would vote “present” on the Republican tabling motion ^[3]. Reporting from Axios and Newsweek shows rank-and-file Democrats were torn between anger at the president’s rhetoric and concerns that a quick impeachment push could be politically counterproductive, prompting some to switch their votes at the last minute ^{[1] [5]}.

5. Counting votes vs. advancing to the Senate: the constitutional reality

A House majority is sufficient to impeach, but sending articles to the Senate requires first surviving House procedures and political consensus; in December the tabling motion prevented immediate advancement, even though 140 members voted to advance the articles ^{[2] [6]}. Past commentary and member statements cited in the record emphasize that impeachment without a clear investigative process or Senate path to conviction is often seen as symbolic or politically risky ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Sources, limitations, and what’s not in the record

This account relies on contemporaneous reporting (Axios, The Hill, Newsweek), Rep. Al Green’s office release, and the House clerk’s roll for the June vote ^{[1] [3] [5] [2] [4]}. Available sources do not mention every individual member’s roll-call on the December 11 vote in the snippets provided here; a full names-and-votes roll would be in the Clerk’s official record, which is referenced by Green’s office but not reproduced in the excerpts supplied ^[2]. Also not found in current reporting: detailed floor transcripts of each switcher’s explanation beyond the leadership statements cited ^{[1] [3]}.

7. What to watch next

Because the House’s internal math and leadership calculations produced a three-way Democratic split rather than a unified bloc, future impeachment efforts hinge on changes in that calculus — shifts in public opinion, new evidence, or strategic choices by Democratic leaders — before articles can realistically be advanced without being tabled ^{[1] [7]}. Observers should consult the full roll call in the Clerk’s records and follow follow-up reporting for any new privileged motions or referrals that would bypass the tabling gambit ^{[2] [4]}.