How does jasmine crockett's voting record compare to other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s roll‑call activity and ideological placement show a reliably progressive voting pattern but with some deviations on foreign‑policy funding; GovTrack reports she missed 3.8% of roll call votes Jan 2023–Dec 2025 and positions her as left‑of‑center on its ideology chart (3.8% missed votes; GovTrack) [1]. Outside scorecards place her very low on Heritage Action’s conservative scale (17% lifetime score), consistent with progressive alignment [2].
1. Crockett’s voting footprint: attendance, sponsorship and ideology
GovTrack’s public record quantifies Crockett’s pattern: from Jan. 2023 to Dec. 2025 she missed 59 of 1,557 roll calls (3.8%), a higher absence rate than the current median of 2.1% among sitting representatives; the same site plots her left‑leaning ideology based on bills she has sponsored and cosponsored [1]. GovTrack’s metrics are useful for comparing activity and ideological placement inside the House, but they don’t by themselves explain why any member misses votes—GovTrack notes common causes such as medical absences or running for higher office [1].
2. How outside scorecards frame her politics
Conservative scorekeepers treat Crockett as a hardline Democrat: Heritage Action assigns her a 17% lifetime score, signaling frequent opposition to the conservative policy agenda [2]. That low rating is consistent with public descriptions of her as aligned with AOC and the Squad and as an outspoken progressive, language used by local and national outlets cited in the file [3] [4]. These scorecards and characterizations highlight partisan differences in how voting records are interpreted.
3. Comparison to congressional progressives: voting alignment and notable departures
Available sources do not provide a direct side‑by‑side roll‑call comparison between Crockett and other named members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). GovTrack places her with left‑of‑center legislators by sponsorship and cosponsorship behavior, which suggests substantial overlap with CPC positions, but specific vote‑by‑vote concordance rates with CPC members are not reported in the supplied material [1]. Ballotpedia and Votesmart pages exist for tracking key votes and issue groupings, but the provided snippets do not include a computed similarity index to CPC members [5] [6].
4. Foreign policy votes: an area of divergence noted in reporting
Profiles of Crockett note she supported measures backing Israel after Oct. 7, 2023, and supported funding for Ukraine—votes that in some cases put House progressives at odds with each other or with more dovish elements of the left [7]. That reporting indicates Crockett can and has supported bipartisan or internationally focused security assistance, a fact that complicates any simple “always votes with the CPC” narrative [7]. The sources do not enumerate which CPC members opposed those specific measures, so the scale of deviation within the caucus is not described in the available reporting [7].
5. Legislative behavior beyond votes: sponsorship and visibility
Congress.gov shows Crockett sponsoring bills in the 119th Congress, including the SWIFT VOTE Act and technical revisions to the U.S. Code, demonstrating active sponsorship work that complements roll‑call behavior [8]. GovTrack’s 2024 report card notes she was a prolific cosponsor relative to the Texas delegation, indicating legislative engagement beyond headline votes [9]. Her public persona—viral confrontations, fundraising visibility and a 2025 Senate bid announcement—amplifies how her voting choices are read politically [3] [4].
6. How to interpret partisan scorecards and media framing
Different evaluators frame Crockett’s record to fit distinct narratives: conservative groups use low scores to show opposition, while progressive allies highlight cosponsorship and left‑leaning placement on ideological charts to signal fidelity to progressive priorities [2] [1]. Media profiles note both her alignment with high‑profile progressives and instances where she supported Israel/Ukraine funding, underscoring that ideological labels have limits and that foreign‑policy votes sometimes cross caucus lines [7] [3].
7. Limitations and what’s missing from the public file
The supplied sources do not include a roll‑by‑roll concordance rate between Crockett and the Congressional Progressive Caucus membership, nor a breakdown of how often she voted with CPC‑endorsed positions versus the full Democratic conference [5] [6] [1]. For a definitive, quantitative comparison you would need vote similarity scores or a dataset that directly compares her yea/nay record to individual CPC members on a set of key bills—those are not found in the current reporting [5] [6] [1].
In short: available metrics and reporting portray Jasmine Crockett as a left‑of‑center, highly visible congresswoman whose overall pattern aligns with progressive priorities, while also recording notable votes on Israel and Ukraine that complicate a uniform CPC comparison; however, the public sources provided stop short of a precise vote‑by‑vote similarity index with other Progressive Caucus members [1] [2] [7].