Which House members voted to advance Rep. Al Green’s H.Res.939 in December 2025, and how did party leaders respond?
Executive summary
The House voted on a motion to table Rep. Al Green’s privileged resolution H.Res.939 on December 11, 2025; the motion to table passed 237–140 with 47 members voting “present,” meaning 140 members voted in a way that opposed tabling and thereby advanced consideration of the resolution [1] [2]. The roll‑call is recorded by the Clerk and summarized in official vote records, while party leaders publicly framed and partially distanced themselves from direct yea/nay alignments through a coordinated “present” strategy and separate leadership statements [3] [4] [5].
1. The arithmetic and parliamentary effect — what the votes actually did
On House Vote No. 322 the Clerk recorded the result as 237 yeas, 140 nays and 47 present on the motion to table H.Res.939, which was introduced by Rep. Al Green; because the motion to table received a majority it “passed,” thereby killing the immediate privileged motion but the 140 nays are those who opposed tabling and thus cast the votes counted by advocates as advancing articles of impeachment [1] [6] [2].
2. Who the 140 members were — what the sources show (and what they don’t)
Official roll‑call documentation showing how each member voted is maintained by the Office of the Clerk and is referenced in Al Green’s and Clerk pages, but the set of search results provided here does not include the full named list of the 140 members who voted “nay” to the motion to table; the available sources therefore establish the total but do not permit a comprehensive roster to be reproduced from this packet alone [3] [2] [1].
3. Examples and public self‑reports — where individual votes are visible in available reporting
Some members publicly explained their votes: Representative Claudia Tenney posted that she voted “Yes” on the motion to table H.Res.939 (i.e., she voted to table and thereby opposed advancing the resolution) in a personal “My Votes Explained” entry [7]; Ranking Member Jamie Raskin issued a statement about his vote via House Judiciary Democrats, though the excerpt here notes the statement’s issuance without reproducing its text, so the provided sources confirm he commented but do not allow this packet to quote his precise vote language [8].
4. Leadership posture — how party leaders reacted and positioned themselves
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar released a joint leadership statement criticizing former President Trump while signaling a tactical approach to the motion and broader strategy; that leadership statement and subsequent press summaries indicate Democratic leaders announced plans to record “present” votes on the motion and framed the decision in terms of political and institutional calculations [4] [5]. Representative Al Green issued a press release noting the final tally and directing readers to the roll‑call; outside groups such as Free Speech For People quickly praised the 140 members who voted to advance the articles, showing partisan advocacy responses to the numerical outcome [2] [9].
5. Context and limits — what this packet can and cannot prove
The resolution itself is cataloged on Congress.gov and GovTrack confirms Rep. Al Green as its sponsor, anchoring the procedural record in published legislative datasets [10] [6]. The core factual claims that can be made from the material provided are the vote totals (237–140–47), that Rep. Al Green introduced H.Res.939, that leadership publicly coordinated a “present” posture, and that advocacy groups praised the 140 who opposed tabling; the specific roster of the 140 individual members who voted to advance the resolution is not contained in the excerpts provided here and therefore cannot be authoritatively listed from this source set alone [1] [3] [2] [4] [9].