Which Republican senators have previously voted to convict impeached presidents or break with their party on major votes?
Executive summary
Seven Senate Republicans crossed party lines to vote to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial — Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey — and one Republican, Mitt Romney, had earlier broken with his party to vote to convict Trump during the first impeachment; other GOP defections on major impeachment and procedural votes have historical precedents and were often explained by constitutional or ethical reasoning rather than partisan strategy [1] [2] [3].
1. The seven who convicted Trump in 2021 — names and context
In the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, seven Republicans joined Democrats to vote “guilty” on the charge of inciting an insurrection: Richard Burr (N.C.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Ben Sasse (Neb.), and Pat Toomey (Pa.) — a bipartisan rebuke that nonetheless fell short of the two‑thirds needed for conviction, producing a 57–43 vote to convict but an acquittal in practice [1] [2] [4].
2. Romney’s repeat defection and the rare GOP break in 2019
Mitt Romney is notable for breaking with his party twice: he was the lone Republican senator to vote to convict Trump in the first impeachment trial and again was among the seven in the second trial, marking an unusual pattern of cross‑party votes tied to his stated judgment about presidential conduct [1] [5].
3. Why some Republicans crossed — stated rationales and political cost
Those who voted to convict offered public explanations grounded in constitutional oaths, evidence of wrongdoing, or the duty to defend institutions; for example, senators framed their votes as obligations to the Constitution rather than partisan gestures [6] [5]. Yet the decision carried clear political risk: some faced censure from state GOP organizations and difficult reelection dynamics, a calculus noted in contemporaneous reporting about backlash and retirement decisions [7] [2].
4. Procedural departures and “test votes” before the final tally
Beyond the final guilty votes, several Republicans broke with leadership on procedural matters during the second trial: five Republicans voted against a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds — Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey — signaling that some GOP senators were willing to reject party arguments that the Senate lacked authority to try a former president [8]. Other split votes included calls for witnesses and initial jurisdictional maneuvers, reflecting internal GOP disagreement over process as well as substance [6] [8].
5. Historical precedents and cross‑party convictions of past presidents
Impeachment crossovers are not unprecedented: the Senate has seen members of a president’s own party vote to convict before, and reporting indicates that some current Republican senators had earlier voted to convict President Bill Clinton in 1999 — names reported in later analyses include Mike Crapo, Chuck Grassley, James Inhofe and Mitch McConnell among those who sided with convictions in the Clinton era — underscoring that party loyalty on impeachment has shifted across different episodes and allegations [9] [10].
6. Competing explanations and hidden incentives
Alternative readings of these defections matter: one view sees principled judgment overruling partisan pressure, while another reads strategic calculation about personal political survival — many of the Republicans who voted to convict were not immediately up for reelection, reducing short‑term electoral risk, and party leaders sometimes framed dissent as constitutionally driven to deflect intra‑party punishment [6] [7]. Reporting also documented organized responses from state parties and conservative groups that sought to punish GOP defectors, revealing an implicit agenda to deter future breaks [7].
7. What this pattern means for future “major votes”
The record shows that while rare, Republican senators do cross party lines on impeachment and other consequential votes when conscience, constitutional interpretation, or political calculation align; contemporaneous analyses and senator statements suggest those fractures are issue‑specific rather than a wholesale erosion of party cohesion, but they have signaled fractures that future leaders and activists will exploit or try to mend depending on their objectives [11] [3].