Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What was the final roll-call tally by party and by name for the House vote on the Epstein measure?
Executive summary
The House voted 427–1 to approve the Epstein Files Transparency Act, with five members not voting; Rep. Clay Higgins (R‑La.) was the lone “no” vote and the measure now heads to the Senate [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets — including The Guardian, Deadline, The New York Times and Roll Call — report the same final numeric tally and the single dissenting name [1] [2] [4] [5].
1. What the roll call number means — near‑unanimity, not unanimity
The numeric result — 427 in favor, 1 opposed, five not voting — signals extraordinary bipartisan agreement for a House floor vote, but is not literal unanimity: several members were absent or abstained, and one member cast the sole “no” vote, Rep. Clay Higgins (R‑La.) [1] [2] [6]. Outlets framed the margin as “near‑unanimous” or “overwhelming,” reflecting that almost all Republicans and Democrats supported the measure [7] [5].
2. Who voted “no” and why that single dissent matters
Every major report names Clay Higgins as the lone dissent; Higgins said the bill risked exposing innocent people and would “absolutely result in innocent people being hurt,” a concern he also voiced on social media after the vote [1] [5]. Journalistic coverage treats his lone “no” as symbolically significant because it highlights privacy and collateral‑harm arguments that opponents raised even as most of his party voted for the bill [5] [8].
3. Party breakdown and how leadership voted
Multiple sources note that “almost all Republicans voted in favor” and that Speaker Mike Johnson ultimately supported the measure, which helped produce the lopsided outcome [5] [4]. Reporting does not provide a row‑by‑row party count inside these snippets, but emphasizes that the vote crossed party lines and included broad GOP backing despite prior resistance from leadership [9] [10].
4. The roll‑call by name — availability and limits in current reporting
The query asked for the “final roll‑call tally by party and by name.” Available news items explicitly state the final numerical tally and identify the lone “no” vote as Clay Higgins [1] [2] [3]. However, the snippets provided here do not include a complete, published list of every Representative’s name and party affiliation for the roll call. The Washington Post headline indicates an interactive list exists (“How every House member voted…”), but the excerpt does not reproduce the full roll‑call names in the material supplied to this briefing [3]. Therefore: available sources do not mention the full roll‑call by every name within the set of excerpts you provided; you would need the Washington Post interactive or official House roll‑call record to obtain the complete by‑name list [3].
5. Where to find the complete by‑name roll call (what reporting points to)
Two sources point readers toward detailed vote records: the Washington Post published an interactive “How every House member voted” piece that implies a full by‑name roll call exists [3]. Congressional clerk records or the official House roll‑call transcript (not among the current snippets) would be the primary source for a complete, machine‑readable list; major outlets summarized the outcome and named the lone dissenter [3] [1].
6. Context: why the vote mattered and competing frames
Reporting emphasizes competing narratives: supporters and survivors framed the vote as overdue transparency that could expose who enabled or covered for Epstein [9] [6], while critics — including Higgins and some GOP leaders earlier — warned about revealing identifying information of victims or unrelated third parties [5] [8]. Leadership initially resisted the discharge petition route but ultimately voted for the bill, a dynamic outlets flagged as politically significant [9] [10].
7. Next steps and what the tally practically accomplishes
Journalists uniformly note that House passage sends the measure to the Senate; passage there and the president’s signature would compel DOJ disclosure as described in the bill [2] [11]. Several reports — including CNN and The New York Times — indicate Senate consideration was expected soon, but none of the supplied excerpts here reports a Senate vote outcome [10] [4].
Limitations and recommended follow‑ups: the supplied sources consistently agree on the headline numbers and the lone “no” vote [1] [2] [3]. For a verbatim, by‑name roll call grouped by party, consult the Washington Post interactive referenced above or the official House roll‑call record; those are not reproduced in full in the excerpts provided for this briefing [3].