Did any prominent Democrats switch votes between the 13 funding measures and when?

1. Who the early March roll calls put in the spotlight — a crowded list of Democrats switching or voting with GOP

Reporting around March 14, 2025 identified a relatively large group of Senate Democrats who either voted to advance or ultimately supported a Republican stopgap funding bill intended to avert a shutdown. Multiple outlets listed nine Democrats plus Independent Angus King as voting for the GOP bill, and those accounts explicitly stated that some senators changed their votes between the initial cloture or procedural tally and the final passage vote. The names repeated across those pieces include Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer alongside Democrats from diverse regions and ideological wings, including Catherine Cortez Masto, Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Kirsten Gillibrand, Maggie Hassan, Gary Peters, Brian Schatz and Jeanne Shaheen. Those accounts framed the actions as pivotal to averting a shutdown at that moment and noted the procedural switching as a key dynamic in Senate negotiating behavior ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

2. Later autumn coverage shows a narrowing of Democrats voting with Republicans as talks stalemated

By late October 2025, coverage of the 13th or subsequent funding measures described a much smaller group of Democrats siding with Republicans on particular procedural votes. Reporting from October 28 and subsequent days identified Senators John Fetterman and Catherine Cortez Masto, along with Independent Angus King, as the most visible Democrats who crossed to the GOP side to advance a measure; other Democrats were described as blocking a bill or remaining unified against the Republican plan. This later coverage does not repeat the broader March roster and instead emphasizes that only a few Democrats voted to advance that specific plan, signaling either a change in individual choices, a change in which measures were on the floor, or both ^{[6] [3] [4]}.

3. How “switching votes” is being reported — procedural nuance versus political messaging

The sources show two distinct vote types: procedural cloture/advance votes and final passage votes. Several March reports explicitly say some senators switched between an initial procedural vote and the final passage, which happens in Senate practice when members change positions after amendments, negotiated assurances, or public pressure. Later October–November reporting focuses on who voted to advance specific bills and often omits detailed roll-call histories, which can create the impression of fewer switchers. The discrepancy between the fuller March lists and the narrower autumn lists likely reflects that different measures, political calculations, and vote contexts change over time, and that the journalistic emphasis—procedural mechanics versus final outcome—shapes which senators are labeled as “switchers” ^{[1] [2] [3] [7]}.

4. Where the accounts agree and where they diverge — tracing consistent facts

Across the reporting, two facts are consistent: a small number of Democratic senators did vote with Republicans on key stopgap measures, and Independent Angus King is repeatedly listed among those voting for GOP plans. The divergence lies in magnitude and roster detail. March reporting lists as many as nine Democrats participating in those votes and calls out some senators changing votes between procedural and final counts; late-October coverage reduces the count to three Democrats (or two Democrats plus King) supporting an advance vote. That divergence is best explained by the shifting calendar of bills and the Senate’s tendency to hold multiple distinct roll calls across a months-long funding fight ^{[1] [2] [6] [3]}.

5. What this pattern implies about Senate dynamics and reporting agendas

The pattern of an initially broader set of Democrats appearing to break ranks, followed by later narrower lists, reflects both Senate tactics and media framing. Senators may vote differently across separate proposals as negotiations alter bill text or as leadership applies pressure; outlets choosing to emphasize procedural switchers versus final passers produce different narratives. Some pieces emphasize party unity being tested and highlight switchers to suggest fracturing, while other accounts focus on remaining opposition to portray Democratic cohesion. Readers should note these editorial choices when interpreting claims about how many “prominent Democrats” switched votes ^{[5] [8] [9]}.

6. Bottom line: confirmed switchers, evolving lists, and how to verify

Confirmed across reporting are specific names who voted with Republicans at key moments — notably Angus King, John Fetterman, and Catherine Cortez Masto in later October votes, and a larger list of Democrats associated with March procedural-to-final changes including Chuck Schumer and others. Because the Senate holds many roll calls on funding measures and the roster can change with each vote, the definitive way to verify who “switched” on a particular package is to consult the Senate’s official roll-call records for the exact cloture and final passage votes on that bill and date. For narrative context, rely on contemporaneous roll-call reporting and note whether outlets reference procedural votes versus final passage ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.