How often have bipartisan coalitions passed CRs versus single-party short-term funding measures since 2010?

1. The headline: CRs are routine — frequency is clear, partisanship picture is not

The assembled analyses converge on one fact: continuing resolutions are a routine feature of modern appropriations, with multiple CRs per year common and lengthy stretches of the fiscal calendar covered by temporary measures. One review finds CRs average about five per year since 1998 and that from 2012–2025 nearly 46 percent of the year was funded by temporary measures, signaling chronic reliance on stopgaps rather than on-time bills ^[1]. Another compendium lists CR actions across fiscal years and counts 57 CRs between FY2010 and FY2025, underscoring frequency, but these sources stop short of systematically coding whether each CR was produced by bipartisan coalitions or passed along party lines ^{[4] [2]}. The bottom line: frequency is well-documented; partisanship attribution is fragmentary in the provided materials.

2. Where bipartisanship shows up: Senate structure and particular votes that crossed the aisle

The analyses note institutional incentives that push some CRs toward bipartisan majorities. The Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold frequently forces cross-party compromises to end debate and enact short-term funding, and specific CRs have recorded bipartisan support—one 2025 Senate CR drew ten Democratic votes, illustrating that bipartisan coalitions can and sometimes do pass CRs when shutdown risk is acute ^{[3] [5]}. At the same time, the materials caution that bipartisan support in the Senate does not necessarily equate to broad bipartisan agreement in the House or uniform bipartisanship across every CR; some stopgaps have been advanced largely on party-line bases depending on chamber control and political context ^{[3] [6]}. The supplied corpus therefore signals mixed patterns: bipartisan passage is common in crisis-averting moments, but not universal.

3. Single-party paths: reconciliation and partisan short-term measures

The analyses show that when one party controls both Congress and the White House or the Senate’s rules permit it, budget maneuvers like reconciliation or single-party short-term measures can drive fiscal outcomes without broad bipartisan backing. Reviews of reconciliation use since 2010 note mostly partisan implementations—Democratic trifectas passing multiple reconciliation bills and Republicans doing likewise less often—demonstrating a legislative route that bypasses cross-party majorities for major policy, though reconciliation is constrained by the Byrd Rule ^[6]. The sources emphasize that single-party short-term measures do occur, particularly when political actors prefer to leverage majority authority rather than negotiate, but the materials do not quantify how many CRs were passed this way versus via bipartisan coalitions ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Structural explanations: why CRs persist and why partisanship varies

The provided commentaries explain structural drivers behind persistent CR use and variable partisanship: split government, the Senate filibuster, rising use of omnibus packages, and the absence of an automatic CR mechanism have all pushed Congress into repeated stopgaps ^{[7] [8]}. Some proposals for automatic continuing resolutions have been debated historically, but implementation has been limited; the Pay Our Military Act is a narrow exception. The analyses argue that institutional rules make bipartisan short-term compromises necessary at times, while political incentives and chamber control make partisan short-term measures feasible at others, creating a shifting pattern rather than a single dominant model ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Missing data and what would be required to produce the exact comparison you asked for

None of the supplied analyses contains a comprehensive, dated roll-call dataset categorizing each CR from 2010–2025 by chamber vote margins and sponsor coalitions to allow a definitive count of bipartisan versus single-party CRs. To produce that count researchers must compile roll-call votes for every CR, note House and Senate vote splits, and apply a consistent rule for what constitutes “bipartisan coalition” (e.g., X% cross-party support or specific cross-party leadership sponsorship). The existing materials supply frequency and illustrative examples—such as aggregate CR counts and instances of bipartisanship in the Senate—but do not provide the event-level voting matrix necessary for a precise comparative tally ^{[2] [5]}.

6. Bottom line and recommended next step for a definitive answer

The supplied sources establish that CRs are frequent and sometimes bipartisan, but also often partisan depending on political context, and they document aggregate counts and institutional causes but not a complete vote-by-vote partisan classification for 2010–2025 ^{[1] [4] [8]}. For a definitive answer, assemble roll-call records for every CR in that period and apply transparent criteria for “bipartisan coalition”; that empirical task is the only way to move from the credible general pattern the sources describe to an exact numeric comparison ^{[2] [7]}.