Which House Democrats voted for and against the Charlie Kirk resolution, and what reasons did they give?
Executive summary
The House adopted H.Res.719 honoring Charlie Kirk with a 310–58 vote; 95 House Democrats voted “yea,” 58 Democrats voted “nay,” 38 Democrats registered “present,” and 26 did not vote, while virtually all Republicans supported the resolution [1] [2]. The split reflected a clash between Democrats who felt condemning political violence required a clear “yes” and others who argued the resolution whitewashed or politicized Kirk’s record and therefore could not be endorsed [2] [3] [4].
1. The arithmetic and the formal record
Official House roll call shows the measure passed 310–58 with 38 present; Clerk records list the vote as Roll Call 282 on H.Res.719 [1]. News outlets reported that 95 Democrats voted in favor, 58 voted against, and 38 voted present, a breakdown confirmed across multiple reports and the roll call [2] [5] [3].
2. Who among House Democrats voted for the resolution, and why
Ninety‑five House Democrats joined Republicans in voting “yea,” including top Democratic leaders such as Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, who publicly framed their votes as a condemnation of political violence while insisting the vote did not endorse Kirk’s views [6] [2]. Several members issued statements saying they voted yes to denounce the assassination and to stand unequivocally against political violence; Representative Yassamin Ansari explicitly said she voted for the resolution because “violence has no place in our democracy” even while calling Kirk a “deeply troubling figure” [7] [6].
3. Who voted against the resolution, and the reasons they offered
All 58 “nay” votes were cast by Democrats, according to Newsweek and Associated Press reporting [5] [3]. High‑profile progressives like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez and Pramila Jayapal publicly explained their “no” votes by arguing the resolution elevated and lauded Kirk in language they described as hagiographic or politically motivated; Ocasio‑Cortez said lawmakers “should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was,” and Jayapal called the Republican measure a political “gotcha” that forced members to praise Kirk rather than simply condemn his assassination [3] [5]. Congressman Troy Carter likewise said he voted “no” because he could not “support language that requires us to praise a man who so often showed disdain and disrespect for others” while still condemning the violence [8].
4. The “present” votes, abstentions and political context
Thirty‑eight Democrats voted “present,” a middle ground chosen by some who wanted to condemn the killing but refused to endorse the resolution’s praise of Kirk; local statements from members like Reps. Diana DeGette and Brittany Peterson said they could not support wording that misrepresents Kirk or invokes Christian nationalist language, so they registered present [9] [2]. Party leaders told members they could vote their conscience rather than issuing a unified whip, a tacit acknowledgment of the political peril for Democrats between denouncing violence and refusing to sanctify Kirk’s record [2] [6].
5. Competing interpretations and partisan agendas
Republicans framed the vote as a bipartisan rebuke of political violence and emphasized near‑unanimous GOP support [10] [1], while critics argued the resolution’s celebratory language whitewashed Kirk’s record on race, gender and LGBTQ issues and was therefore inappropriate as written [4] [11]. Progressives and the Congressional Black Caucus argued the measure ignored Kirk’s history of racist and misogynistic commentary, turning a tragic murder into partisan sanctification, a perspective invoked by several “no” votes and public statements [12] [11]. Party leaders who voted yes insisted the vote was about condemning political violence, not endorsing Kirk’s views, reflecting competing calculations about political optics and moral principle [6] [2].