How has jasmine crockett voted on key progressive bills compared to other progressives?
Executive summary
Rep. Jasmine Crockett is identified in multiple profiles as a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and "a progressive" [1]. Quantitative trackers show she cosponsored many bills (third-most among Texas delegation in one measure) and missed 3.8% of roll‑call votes from Jan 2023–Dec 2025 (59 of 1,555) compared with a median of 2.1% for current representatives [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a vote‑by‑vote comparison between Crockett and a named set of "key progressives"; they report affiliation, cosineorship counts and some voting metrics but not a consistent roll‑call alignment score versus other progressives [4] [2] [1].
1. Crockett’s progressive label and caucus ties — identity matters
Jasmine Crockett is publicly labeled and self‑positioned as a progressive: she is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has been described as a "progressive Democrat" in profiles and reporting [1]. That label frames expectations about how she should line up on bills championed by the left, and it is the primary basis reporters use when comparing her to lawmakers like those in "the Squad" or other progressive leaders [1] [5].
2. Legislative activity: cosponsorships and productivity — a numerical hint
GovTrack’s 2024 report card notes Crockett cosponsored the third‑most bills in the Texas delegation and provides other legislative statistics that signal active engagement in sponsorship and cosponsorship [2]. Those raw counts are a useful proxy for legislative activism but do not directly translate into ideological purity — cosponsoring can reflect constituent priorities, caucus strategy or bipartisan partnership as much as progressive fidelity [2].
3. Roll‑call attendance and voting frequency — a measurable difference
GovTrack records that from January 2023 to December 2025 Crockett missed 59 of 1,555 roll‑call votes (3.8%), which the site notes is higher than the current representatives’ median lifetime miss rate of 2.1% [3]. That gap is a factual metric reporters use to question reliability on close votes; however, GovTrack also cautions missed votes can have many causes (medical, running for higher office, etc.), and the sources do not attribute motive in Crockett’s case [3].
4. What the “key votes” trackers show — incomplete but suggestive
Ballotpedia and Vote Smart maintain lists of key votes and offer summaries of Crockett’s positions and votes, but the material in the available results is descriptive rather than analytic: they identify and catalog votes rather than producing a comparative ideological ranking versus a defined set of "progressives" [4] [6]. Heritage Action’s scorecard lists Crockett’s grade for the 118th Congress but is a conservative measurement intended for partisan comparison; the source exists but the excerpt here does not show her specific percentage or how it compares to other progressive members [7].
5. Media narratives and political framing — competing viewpoints
Local and national press covering Crockett’s run for U.S. Senate routinely frame her as a progressive firebrand with national profile and viral moments — an asset to some Democrats and a liability to opponents. Roll Call, The New York Times, KERA and Texas outlets emphasize her progressive positioning and fundraising reach while noting criticism from GOP figures and some Democratic skeptics about electability and "baggage" [8] [5] [9] [10]. Conservative outlets amplify scandals and financial critiques; those pieces exist in the record [11]. Readers should expect partisan framing on both sides.
6. What the sources do not say — limits on direct comparison
Available documents do not supply a single, consistent roll‑call alignment score that pits Crockett directly against named progressives (for example, AOC, Ilhan Omar or Pramila Jayapal) across the same set of "key progressive bills." The sources provide caucus membership, cosponsorship tallies and attendance stats but not the vote‑by‑vote comparative analysis the question seeks [4] [6] [2] [1] [3].
7. How to interpret these data responsibly — context and caution
Use caucus membership and cosponsorship counts as directional indicators of Crockett’s progressive posture [2] [1]. Treat higher missed‑vote rates as a flag that warrants follow‑up rather than proof of dereliction — GovTrack explicitly notes multiple legitimate reasons for missed votes [3]. For a definitive comparison to "other progressives" on named bills, consult detailed roll‑call datasets (House Clerk, GovTrack roll‑call exports, or Voteview) and prepare to normalize by session, procedural votes, and which bills were defined as "key" — none of which are provided in the current results [4] [6] [2].
Bottom line: reporting shows Crockett is a self‑identified progressive with active sponsorship behavior and a slightly higher missed‑vote rate; the available sources do not contain the vote‑by‑vote comparative analysis to state firmly how she voted relative to a chosen set of progressive colleagues [2] [1] [3].