As Democrats move forward to pass health care reform attention has focused on a key piece of Senate rules known as budget reconciliation. This post takes Senate vote records covering 13 key reconciliation votes from 1990 to 2007 to show how senators in both parties voted--and how sitting senators voted in the past--on a variety of reconciliation bills.

(Click on the image to the right for a full visualization of these reconciliation votes.)

Reconciliation is a legislative process in the Senate commonly used to pass legislation concerning spending, revenues or the debt-limit. The process has been used 22 times since 1974. More often than not, these bills have been vehicles for large reforms in the tax code, health care and other social programs from education to welfare. One key reason that reconciliation is used for major reforms is that the process is subject to different rules than other bills. Most importantly, reconciliation bills are not subject to cloture votes--the 60 vote supermajority procedure to overcome a filibuster--and thus only require a 50 vote majority to pass.

The voting record shows that reconciliation is often used as a way to pass otherwise contentious legislation that could not receive sufficient bipartisan support to reach the 60 vote supermajority necessary to clear a cloture vote. Seven of the thirteen reconciliation measures examined here passed between 1990 and 2007 were almost universally opposed by the minority party while gaining almost total unity in support from the majority using the reconciliation process.

These seven reconciliation bills include the following:

1) The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, also known as the 1993 Clinton budget. The vote went 50-50 with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie. Five Democrats defected to vote "Nay" with 45 Republicans.

2) The Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which sought cuts in Medicaid and welfare programs, restructuring of Medicare and major tax cuts. The vote split 52-47 with one Republican defecting to vote with 46 Democrats against the bill. The bill was ultimately vetoed by President Clinton.

3) The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, a package of tax cuts and health care reforms. The vote split 54-46 with three Republicans defecting to vote with 43 Democrats against the bill. The bill was ultimately vetoed by President Clinton.

4) The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, commonly known as the Bush tax cuts. The vote split 58-34 with twelve Democrats supporting the bill with 46 Republicans and two Republicans defecting to oppose the bill with 31 Democrats.

5) The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, further tax cuts. The vote split 50-50 with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. Two Democrats defected to support the bill with 48 Republicans and three Republicans defected to oppose the bill with 47 Democrats.

6) The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which included cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. The vote split 50-50 with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote. Four Republicans defected to oppose the bill with 46 Democrats. No Democrats voted for the bill.

7) The Tax Increase Prevention and Reduction Act of 2005, an extension of tax cuts. The vote split 54-43 with three Democrats defecting to support the bill with 51 Republicans and three Republicans defecting to oppose the bill with 41 Democrats.

One reconciliation bill split mostly along party lines, but was still able to gather the 60 votes that would normally be enough to clear a cloture vote. This bill was:

1) Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which reduced certain taxes for married couples. The vote split 60-34 with seven Democrats voting with 53 Republicans to support the bill and one Republican voting with 33 Democrats to oppose it. The bill was ultimately vetoed by President Clinton.

On the other hand, only three of the thirteen reconciliation bills garnered wide support from both parties. These were:

1) The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which included reductions in Medicare payments and the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The vote was 85-15 with twelve Republicans and three Democrats opposing the bill.

2) The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, a tax cut package that also included education savings measures. The vote was 92-8 with eight Democrats opposing the bill.

3) The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which increased federal funding and loans for higher education. The vote was 79-12 with twelve Republicans opposing the bill.

Two bills caused significant splits within the parties. In one case, both parties were almost equally split in their support or opposition. In another case, only the minority Democrats were split. These were:

1) The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, which included tax increases proposed by President George H.W. Bush. The vote split 54-45 with 35 Democrats and 19 Republicans voting in support of the bill and 20 Democrats and 25 Republicans voting in opposition.

2) The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which contained welfare reform. The vote split 78-21 with the Democrats splitting 25 in support and 21 opposed to the legislation.

(Ed. note: Votes totals only go back to 1990 because the Senate web site's catalog of votes does not go back further.)

Most of the 100 sitting senators previously cast votes on at least one of these reconciliation bills. Some have voted on all thirteen of them. Below is a spreadsheet detailing the votes by sitting senators on all thirteen reconciliation bills examined here (Present and Not Voting senators have been excluded for space reasons.)

	Yea	Party	Nay	Party
1990 OBRA	Akaka	D	Baucus	D
	Bingaman	D	Grassley	R
	Bond	R	Harkin	D
	Byrd	D	Hatch	R
	Cochran	R	Kerry	D
	Dodd	D	Lautenberg	D
	Inouye	D	Levin	D
	Kohl	D	Lieberman	D
	Leahy	D	McCain	R
	Lugar	R	McConnell	R
	Mikulski	D	Shelby	D
	Reid	D
	Rockefeller	D
	Specter	R
1993 OBRA	Akaka	D	Bennett	R
	Baucus	D	Bond	R
	Bingaman	D	Cochran	R
	Boxer	D	Grassley	R
	Byrd	D	Gregg	R
	Conrad	D	Hatch	R
	Dodd	D	Hutchison	R
	Dorgan	D	Lautenberg	D
	Feingold	D	Lugar	R
	Feinstein	D	McCain	R
	Harkin	D	McConnell	R
	Inouye	D	Shelby	D
	Kerry	D	Specter	R
	Kohl	D
	Leahy	D
	Levin	D
	Lieberman	D
	Mikulski	D
	Murray	D
	Reid	D
	Rockefeller	D
Balanced Budget Act of 1995	Bennett	R	Akaka	D
	Bond	R	Baucus	D
	Cochran	R	Bingaman	D
	Grassley	R	Boxer	D
	Gregg	R	Byrd	D
	Hatch	R	Conrad	D
	Hutchison	R	Dodd	D
	Inhofe	R	Dorgan	D
	Kyl	R	Feingold	D
	Lugar	R	Feinstein	D
	McCain	R	Harkin	D
	McConnell	R	Inouye	D
	Shelby	R	Kerry	D
	Snowe	R	Kohl	D
	Specter	R	Lautenberg	D
			Leahy	D
			Levin	D
			Lieberman	D
			Mikulski	D
			Murray	D
			Reid	D
			Rockefeller	D
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996	Baucus	D	Akaka	D
	Bennett	R	Bingaman	D
	Bond	R	Boxer	D
	Byrd	D	Dodd	D
	Cochran	R	Feinstein	D
	Conrad	D	Inouye	D
	Dorgan	D	Lautenberg	D
	Feingold	D	Leahy	D
	Grassley	R	Murray	D
	Gregg	R
	Harkin	D
	Hatch	R
	Hutchison	R
	Inhofe	R
	Kerry	D
	Kohl	D
	Kyl	R
	Levin	D
	Lieberman	D
	Lugar	R
	McCain	R
	McConnell	R
	Mikulski	D
	Reid	D
	Rockefeller	D
	Shelby	R
	Snowe	R
	Specter	R
	Wyden	D
Balanced Budget Act of 1997	Akaka	D	Enzi	R
	Baucus	D	Inhofe	R
	Bennett	R	Sessions	R
	Bingaman	D
	Bond	R
	Boxer	D
	Brownback	R
	Byrd	D
	Cochran	R
	Collins	R
	Conrad	D
	Dodd	D
	Dorgan	D
	Durbin	D
	Feingold	D
	Feinstein	D
	Grassley	R
	Gregg	R
	Harkin	D
	Hatch	R
	Hutchison	R
	Inouye	D
	Johnson	D
	Kerry	D
	Kohl	D
	Kyl	R
	Landrieu	D
	Lautenberg	D
	Leahy	D
	Levin	D
	Lieberman	D
	Lugar	R
	McCain	R
	McConnell	R
	Mikulski	D
	Murray	D
	Reed	D
	Reid	D
	Roberts	R
	Rockefeller	D
	Shelby	R
	Snowe	R
	Specter	R
	Wyden	D
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997	Akaka	D	Byrd	D
	Baucus	D	Feingold	D
	Bennett	R
	Bingaman	D
	Bond	R
	Boxer	D
	Brownback	R
	Cochran	R
	Collins	R
	Conrad	D
	Dodd	D
	Dorgan	D
	Durbin	D
	Enzi	R
	Feinstein	D
	Grassley	R
	Gregg	R
	Harkin	D
	Hatch	R
	Hutchison	R
	Inhofe	R
	Inouye	D
	Johnson	D
	Kerry	D
	Kohl	D
	Kyl	R
	Landrieu	D
	Lautenberg	D
	Leahy	D
	Levin	D
	Lieberman	D
	Lugar	R
	McCain	R
	Mcconnell	R
	Mikulski	D
	Murray	D
	Reed	D
	Reid	D
	Roberts	R
	Rockefeller	D
	Sessions	R
	Shelby	R
	Snowe	R
	Specter	R
	Wyden	D
Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999	Bennett	R	Akaka	D
	Bond	R	Baucus	D
	Brownback	R	Bayh	D
	Bunning	R	Bingaman	D
	Cochran	R	Boxer	D
	Enzi	R	Byrd	D
	Grassley	R	Collins	R
	Gregg	R	Conrad	D
	Hatch	R	Dodd	D
	Hutchison	R	Dorgan	D
	Inhofe	R	Durbin	D
	Kyl	R	Feingold	D
	Lugar	R	Feinstein	D
	McCain	R	Harkin	D
	McConnell	R	Inouye	D
	Roberts	R	Johnson	D
	Sessions	R	Kerry	D
	Shelby	R	Kohl	D
			Landrieu	D
			Lautenberg	D
			Levin	D
			Lieberman	D
			Lincoln	D
			Mikulski	D
			Murray	D
			Reed	D
			Reid	D
			Rockefeller	D
			Schumer	D
			Snowe	R
			Specter	R
			Voinovich	R
			Wyden	D
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000	Bennett	R	Akaka	D
	Bond	R	Baucus	D
	Brownback	R	Bayh	D
	Bunning	R	Bingaman	D
	Byrd	D	Conrad	D
	Cochran	R	Dodd	D
	Collins	R	Dorgan	D
	Crapo	R	Durbin	D
	Enzi	R	Feingold	D
	Feinstein	D	Harkin	D
	Grassley	R	Johnson	D
	Gregg	R	Lautenberg	D
	Hatch	R	Leahy	D
	Hutchison	R	Levin	D
	Inhofe	R	Lieberman	D
	Kohl	D	Lincoln	D
	Kyl	R	Mikulski	D
	Landrieu	D	Reed	D
	Lugar	R	Reid	D
	McCain	R	Rockefeller	D
	McConnell	R	Schumer	D
	Roberts	R	Voinovich	R
	Sessions	R	Wyden	D
	Shelby	R
	Snowe	R
	Specter	R
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001	Baucus	D	Bayh	D
	Bennett	R	Byrd	D
	Bond	R	Cantwell	D
	Brownback	R	Carper	D
	Bunning	R	Conrad	D
	Cochran	R	Dodd	D
	Collins	R	Dorgan	D
	Crapo	R	Durbin	D
	Ensign	R	Feingold	D
	Feinstein	D	Inouye	D
	Grassley	R	Levin	D
	Gregg	R	Lieberman	D
	Hatch	R	McCain	R
	Hutchison	R	Mikulski	D
	Inhofe	R	Nelson (FL)	D
	Johnson	D	Reed	D
	Kohl	D	Reid	D
	Kyl	R	Rockefeller	D
	Landrieu	D	Schumer	D
	Lincoln	D	Stabenow	D
	Lugar	R	Wyden	D
	McConnell	R
	Nelson (NE)	D
	Roberts	R
	Sessions	R
	Shelby	R
	Snowe	R
	Specter	R
	Voinovich	R
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003	Alexander	R	Akaka	D
	Bennett	R	Baucus	D
	Bond	R	Bayh	D
	Brownback	R	Bingaman	D
	Bunning	R	Boxer	D
	Chambliss	R	Byrd	D
	Cochran	R	Cantwell	D
	Collins	R	Carper	D
	Cornyn	R	Conrad	D
	Crapo	R	Dodd	D
	Ensign	R	Dorgan	D
	Enzi	R	Durbin	D
	Grassley	R	Feingold	D
	Gregg	R	Feinstein	D
	Hatch	R	Harkin	D
	Hutchison	R	Inouye	D
	Inhofe	R	Johnson	D
	Kyl	R	Kerry	D
	Lugar	R	Kohl	D
	McConnell	R	Landrieu	D
	Nelson (NE)	D	Lautenberg	D
	Roberts	R	Leahy	D
	Sessions	R	Levin	D
	Shelby	R	Lieberman	D
	Specter	R	Lincoln	D
	Voinovich	R	McCain	R
			Mikulski	D
			Murray	D
			Nelson (FL)	D
			Pryor	D
			Reed	D
			Reid	D
			Rockefeller	D
			Schumer	D
			Snowe	R
			Stabenow	D
			Wyden	D
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005	Alexander	R	Akaka	D
	Bennett	R	Baucus	D
	Bond	R	Bayh	D
	Brownback	R	Bingaman	D
	Bunning	R	Boxer	D
	Burr	R	Byrd	D
	Chambliss	R	Cantwell	D
	Coburn	R	Carper	D
	Cochran	R	Collins	R
	Cornyn	R	Conrad	D
	Crapo	R	Dodd	D
	DeMint	R	Dorgan	D
	Ensign	R	Durbin	D
	Enzi	R	Feingold	D
	Graham	R	Feinstein	D
	Grassley	R	Harkin	D
	Gregg	R	Inouye	D
	Hatch	R	Johnson	D
	Hutchison	R	Kerry	D
	Inhofe	R	Kohl	D
	Isakson	R	Landrieu	D
	Kyl	R	Lautenberg	D
	Lugar	R	Leahy	D
	McCain	R	Levin	D
	McConnell	R	Lieberman	D
	Murkowski	R	Lincoln	D
	Roberts	R	Mikulski	D
	Sessions	R	Murray	D
	Shelby	R	Nelson (FL)	D
	Specter	R	Nelson (NE)	D
	Thune	R	Pryor	D
	Vitter	R	Reed	D
	Voinovich	R	Reid	D
			Rockefeller	D
			Schumer	D
			Snowe	R
			Stabenow	D
			Wyden	D
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005	Alexander	R	Akaka	D
	Bennett	R	Baucus	D
	Bond	R	Bayh	D
	Brownback	R	Bingaman	D
	Bunning	R	Boxer	D
	Burr	R	Byrd	D
	Chambliss	R	Cantwell	D
	Coburn	R	Carper	D
	Cochran	R	Conrad	D
	Collins	R	Dodd	D
	Cornyn	R	Dorgan	D
	Crapo	R	Durbin	D
	DeMint	R	Feingold	D
	Ensign	R	Feinstein	D
	Enzi	R	Harkin	D
	Graham	R	Inouye	D
	Grassley	R	Johnson	D
	Gregg	R	Kerry	D
	Hatch	R	Kohl	D
	Hutchison	R	Landrieu	D
	Inhofe	R	Lautenberg	D
	Isakson	R	Leahy	D
	Kyl	R	Levin	D
	Lugar	R	Lieberman	D
	McCain	R	Lincoln	D
	McConnell	R	Menendez	D
	Murkowski	R	Mikulski	D
	Nelson (NE)	D	Murray	D
	Nelson (FL)	D	Reed	D
	Pryor	D	Reid	D
	Roberts	R	Schumer	D
	Sessions	R	Snowe	R
	Shelby	R	Stabenow	D
	Thune	R	Voinovich	R
	Vitter	R	Wyden	D
College Cost Reduction Act of 2007	Akaka	D	Bond	R
	Alexander	R	Bunning	R
	Barrasso	R	Burr	R
	Baucus	D	Coburn	R
	Bayh	D	DeMint	R
	Bennett	R	Graham	R
	Bingaman	D	Gregg	R
	Boxer	D	Hagel	R
	Brown	D	Inhofe	R
	Brownback	R	McConnell	R
	Byrd	D	Vitter	R
	Cantwell	D
	Cardin	D
	Carper	D
	Casey	D
	Chambliss	R
	Cochran	R
	Collins	R
	Conrad	D
	Corker	R
	Cornyn	R
	Crapo	R
	Dorgan	D
	Durbin	D
	Ensign	R
	Enzi	R
	Feingold	D
	Feinstein	D
	Grassley	R
	Harkin	D
	Hatch	R
	Hutchison	R
	Inouye	D
	Isakson	R
	Johnson	D
	Klobuchar	D
	Kohl	D
	Kyl	R
	Landrieu	D
	Lautenberg	D
	Leahy	D
	Levin	D
	Lieberman	D
	Lugar	R
	McCaskill	D
	Menendez	D
	Mikulski	D
	Murkowski	R
	Murray	D
	Nelson (FL)	D
	Nelson (NE)	D
	Pryor	D
	Reed	D
	Reid	D
	Rockefeller	D
	Sanders	D
	Schumer	D
	Sessions	R
	Shelby	R
	Snowe	R
	Specter	R
	Stabenow	D
	Tester	D
	Thune	R
	Voinovich	R
	Webb	D
	Whitehouse	D
	Wyden	D

Is it really any surprise that Sen. Olympia Snowe announced that she will vote for the health reform bill in the Senate Finance Committee? Last month, we did a vote analysis for the senior Maine senator and found that she is far more likely to vote with Democrats than her fellow Republicans. Despite her party affiliation, Snowe appears to have a voting record you would expect from a moderate to conservative Democrat. Her voting record shows that she is a much more reliable vote for the Democratic majority than her public Hamlet routine would suggest. You can see the visualization here and follow below.

Of the top twenty senators with the highest percentage of votes in common with Sen. Snowe, eighteen are Democrats, most of which are commonly identified as the most moderate Democrats in the caucus. Snowe holds a 70%+ vote correlation with thirteen senators, two of which are Republicans. The top twenty senators with votes in common with Olympia Snowe are:

• Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME (86.92%)
• Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE (78.46%)
• Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-AR (77.69%)
• Sen. Arlen Specter, D-PA (74.42%)
• Sen. Jon Tester, D-MT (74.03)
• Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN (72.87%)
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN (72.66%)
• Sen. Mark Pryor, D-AR (71.81%)
• Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND (71.48%)
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK (71.15%)
• Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT (71.04%)
• Sen. Bill Nelson, D-FL (70.27%)
• Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-LA (70.16%)
• Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI (69.62%)
• Sen. Mark Begich, D-AK (69.44%)
• Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND (68.83%)
• Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO (68.80%)
• Sen. Kay Hagan, D-NC (68.60%)
• Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV (68.31%)
• Sen. Tim Johnson, D-SD (68.00%)

When we first published this analysis back in September, I wrote:

The Democrats with the highest voting agreement with Snowe are also seen as key votes in the health care reform push. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Blanche Lincoln hold the two highest voting agreements with Snowe. Both are seen as key votes on any health reform bill and Nelson, in particular, has been a key player in all major legislation this year. Nelson was instrumental in passing the stimulus bill earlier this year and has recently echoed Snowe in her support for a public option trigger in the health care reform legislation. Lincoln is seen as one of the more conservative Democratic senators and faces a tough reelection campaign in one of the few states that trended away from the Democrats in the 2008 election. Her vote will be crucial to Democrats on health care reform and her high level of voting agreement with Snowe shows how crucial the Maine Republican’s support for a bill may be.

Since the end of July the Senate Finance Committee has been the focus of health care reform discussions. More specifically, the bipartisan "Gang of Six," organized by Sen. Max Baucus, has been working to formulate a health care compromise that some Republicans may be able to support. An analysis of voting agreement between the six senators involved in these discussions shows the likely futility of this effort as only one Republican shares similar voting patterns with the majority Democrats.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (subject of a voting agreement analysis here) is the only Republican in the "Gang of Six" with a substantial voting agreement with the Democrats involved. Snowe's agreement with the three Democrats, Sens. Baucus, Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad, is above 60% for all three, but below 60% for the other two Republicans, Sens. Mike Enzi and Chuck Grassley. This continues to underline the key role that Snowe can play in the health care reform plan's final structure.

Neither Grassley nor Enzi shares much in voting agreement with the Democrats in the "Gang". They both have voting agreements of 35% or less with the three Democrats. The lowest voting agreement for both is with Sen. Bingaman (23.4% for Enzi, 25.8% for Grassley).

Recently, Democrats have focused on only attracting one or two Republicans, Snowe being the highest target, to vote for the bill rather than pursuing the strategy that Baucus sought with the "Gang of Six" talks. These voting agreement numbers show that, aside from Sen. Snowe, the "Gang of Six" is intensely polarized in their voting patterns. The likelihood of bipartisan compromise was unlikely from the start of this process.

The above graphic was created using the New York Times Congress API and based on Nodebox code from Juice Analytics.

Despite what seemed to be a bruising August for health care reform efforts, Congress still appears to be on a path to pass a bill this year. At the center of that effort is one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. Snowe is perhaps that most moderate Republican remaining since Sen. Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats. An analysis of her voting record this year shows that she is more likely to vote with the Democrats than to vote with her Republican peers. It comes as little wonder that she would be targeted as the deciding vote on health care reform.

Snowe has a 60% or higher voting agreement with every Democratic or Independent senator for the 111th Congress, while maintaining the same level of voting agreement with only twelve Republicans. The voting similarity between Snowe and Democrats is so similar that she holds a 70% or higher voting agreement with eleven Democratic senators. She holds this level of voting agreement with two Republicans.

The two Republicans that have a high level of voting agreement with Snowe are Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Sen. Collins, Maine's junior senator, is, like Snowe, often a reliable Republican vote for the Democrats. Collins also cast votes in support of the stimulus bill and other Democratic proposals including S-CHIP expansion and fair pay in the work place. Collins holds the highest voting agreement of any senator with Snowe at 86.92%. Murkowski's voting agreement with Snowe likely results from her support for fair pay in the work place (all Republican women in the Senate supported this legislation) and her support for most cloture votes.

The Democrats with the highest voting agreement with Snowe are also seen as key votes in the health care reform push. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Blanche Lincoln hold the two highest voting agreements with Snowe. Both are seen as key votes on any health reform bill and Nelson, in particular, has been a key player in all major legislation this year. Nelson was instrumental in passing the stimulus bill earlier this year and has recently echoed Snowe in her support for a public option trigger in the health care reform legislation. Lincoln is seen as one of the more conservative Democratic senators and faces a tough reelection campaign in one of the few states that trended away from the Democrats in the 2008 election. Her vote will be crucial to Democrats on health care reform and her high level of voting agreement with Snowe shows how crucial the Maine Republican's support for a bill may be.

The regularity with which Snowe votes with Democrats may be a bright spot for the majority as they push forward in the health reform debate. As some have determined that reform efforts have dwindled as the summer has come to an end, a careful look at the landscape shows that little has changed. All that matters is whether Snowe intends to use her position as the most Democratic friendly Republican to craft a bill she would support.

To see voting agreement with Sen. Olympia Snowe for all senators see this visualization.

The visualization was created using data from the New York Times' Congress API.

The US Senate has finally reversed its longstanding policy of restricting public access to raw data about how Senators vote, and is now posting XML of votes on Senate.gov.

This move follows a recent initiative, led by Senator DeMint, to request the Senate Rules Committee post the votes data.

While this issue may seem to be arising out of the blue, with recent coverage in the Politico, Senate votes XML have been brooched as a perennial roadblock. It would seem, however, that the number of people affected by the restriction grew to the point where they could no longer be ignored, and common sense prevailed.

Just as the recent rewriting of Web use restrictions has led to creative Internet use among Members of Congress, the new votes data should help fuel a renaissance of vote analysis and visualization. XML encourages advanced processing and analysis, making votes legible to both humans and computers, and giving us a new view on how Senators vote.

Senator DeMint and Senator Durbin deserve praise for quickly acting to address the data issue, as do many staffers and administrators. Senator Lieberman expressed support for vote data access in the fall of 2007, and Jerry Brito wrote about the issue earlier that year as well.

This is what transparency reform looks like. Complicated, messy, confusing, often bipartisan, often initially unsuccessful, and helpfully spurred on through public involvement. If this case serves as any example at all, we should be very encouraged about future efforts.

For today, though, Nice Work, Senate!

Earlier, I wrote about a "Dear Colleague" letter circulating in the Senate written by Sen. Jim DeMint asking for roll call votes to be put online in XML format. The signers of the letter, so far, include a bipartisan cast of senators. They include Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), and Sen. DeMint (R-SC).

If you aren't represented by any of these senators, you might want to check with your senators and see if they'll sign the letter to support the release of roll call votes in XML. This ought to be a no-brainer.

If not now, when?

Neither the House nor the Senate maintain any reasonable database of lawmaker votes. And while the House releases their votes in structured format, the Senate does not. There has long been a push to get Congress to adapt to changes that happened online a few years ago, but there has been minimal progress in the Senate. And yet, there is still hope.

Sen. Jim DeMint is circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter asking Rules and Administration Committee chair Chuck Schumer and ranking member Robert Bennett to release roll call votes in XML format to allow the public to interpret "our votes on its own." Tom Jones, a staffer for Sen. DeMint, explains the importance of this move to XML at The Next Right:

Currently the Senate posts its votes in HTML (HyperText Markup Language). In 1999, this was acceptable. But today plain HTML is the technological equivalent of a rotary telephone, adequate for a basic service but unable to perform the variety of functions modern technology now allows.

Instead of HTML, Senator DeMint is asking that votes be posted in XML (Extensible Markup Language). Without going to deep into the technology, XML would allow roll call votes in the United States Senate to be disseminated in a format that anyone can download, parse, disseminate, and distribute in any form they see fit. By having an authoritative XML stream provided by the Senate, application developers could build databases that could overlay different types of data onto Senate votes, public interest groups could match up policy background with votes, or any of a hundred other possible applications. The result would not be merely some whiz-bang technology, but rather a better informed electorate.

Unfortunately with the current HTML formatting, the best we can hope for is that outside groups successfully “scrape” the Senate webpage for votes and repackage the data on their website. This forces the public to either pay for the information from other websites or to rely on data which can be prone to errors. Such basic democratic information, how elected officials vote on important issues, should be available in the most transparent format, free and accessible to all Americans.

Like Sen. Lieberman's resolution to free CRS reports, this is an easy win for the Senate. Unfortunately, some senators will resist this move, as they fear easy access to their voting record could provide opportunities for others -- the public, opposition campaigns -- to make up their own minds with senatorial spin.

This reasoning is simply not legitimate in the present day. There is already a presumption of freedom for public information in the public; senators should take heed. If you want to urge your senator to sign on to Sen. DeMint's letter to the Rules Committee, you can find their contact information here.

Below is the full letter written by Sen. DeMint:

Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman  Senator Bob Bennett, Ranking Member

Committee on Rules and Administration  Committee on Rules and Administration

305 Russell Senate Office Building  305 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510    Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senators Schumer and Bennett:

We are writing today to ask you to change the Senate’s policy on the publishing of roll call votes so they are made available to the public in an XML format, in addition to what is provided on the Senate website today.

As Americans increasingly turn to internet to stay informed, the Senate as a body has a duty to promote timely and accurate reporting of our actions through the most current and effective technologies. Voting is the most basic Senate action and is of crucial importance to the public. Yet the Secretary of the Senate is constrained by an antiquated policy on how roll call votes can be published on the Senate website.

The Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms have made strides in the development of the Senate website and the lobbying disclosure database. However, it is our understanding that the Rules Committee does not permit the Secretary to use "XML" for online voting records.

It is crucial that the Senate add XML. XML is more than merely a data format; it promotes the ability of citizens, the public, and the press to access and analyze Senate roll call votes. The addition of XML will allow the public to use computers to search, sort, and visualize voting records in new ways. While the costs associated with this transition would be negligible, the impact on transparency would be profound.

It is troubling that the current policy makes it more difficult for the public to access and disseminate information about Senate roll call votes.  This policy has created a situation where outside groups are forced to create databases that are more likely to contain errors and omissions. The public should not have to resort to subscription-based or mistake-ridden databases to easily obtain this information.

We understand the policy was originally implemented because “Senators want to provide their voting records to their constituents themselves.” The idea that the Senate would intentionally hamstring the distribution of roll call votes so Senators could put a better spin on them is concerning. The public is capable of interpreting our votes on its own.

The House of Representatives has been using XML for approximately five years with no adverse effects. It is time for the Senate to change its policy on sharing XML data and make roll call vote information easily available to the public. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with you improve the Senate’s legislative transparency in this way.

The new look web site for the House Judiciary Committee is looking pretty darn good. The site features a nicer layout, a full schedule with live streaming coverage of committee hearings, background documents, executive branch correspondence, and, most importantly, text of markup sessions including roll call votes on bills and amendments. All committees should do this. One thing that's missing is an archive of old committee hearing videos. Check out the new site and what else could be added and what other committees can learn form this.

A couple of analyses highlight the contributions of the United Auto Workers PAC to proponents of the auto bailout. The Center for Responsive Politics released an analysis of Senate votes and UAW PAC contributions last week. Yesterday, the conservative Business & Media Institute released their own analysis of UAW PAC giving and the alignment of auto bailout support. After calculating the 2008 UAW PAC giving and matching it up to votes on bailout, I found some differences with the BMI report.

In my review of 2008 UAW PAC contributions, I found that the PAC contributed a total of $1,111,250 to 182 lawmakers who voted "Yes" on the auto bailout. The UAW PAC also contributed a total of $111,500 to 18 lawmakers voting "No". (Also, seven lawmakers who did not vote received a total of $32,000.)

On average, however, there is little difference between the Yes and No camps in the dollar amount of the PAC contributions received. Lawmakers who received UAW PAC contributions and voted No, received slightly more money on average than those receiving UAW PAC money and voting Yes. On average the 18 No votes received $6,194, the 182 Yes votes received $6,106 on average.

Of all 207 lawmawkers receiving campaign contributions from the UAW PAC in 2008, only two are Republicans (Sen. Arlen Specter, voted Yes; Rep. Frank LoBiondo, voted No). Even more so than voting preference, the UAW's PAC contributions align with the long time union preference for Democrats.

UAW PAC contributions are definitely a strong predictive force in how a member will vote, but partisan identification appears to be a stronger force here.

(All data comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.)

The auto bailout vote split along both partisan and regional lines, which in turn exposed the regional rivalry of Southern-located foreign auto plants and Northern-located domestic auto plants. The Clarion-Ledger posted an interactive map to their web site showing the locations of foreign and domestic auto plants in Southern states. The votes of the Southern senators with foreign auto plants in their respective states reflects this, as Kagro X shows at Congress Matters:

Kentucky: McConnell, yes on banks, no on cars; Bunning, no on both. Texas: Hutchison, yes on banks, no on cars; Cornyn, yes on banks, not voting on cars. Georgia: Chambliss and Isakson both yes on banks, no on cars. Louisiana: Vitter, no on both; Landrieu, no on banks, yes on cars. Tennessee: Alexander, yes on banks, not voting on cars; Corker, yes on banks, no on cars.

Similarly, we can look at the Northern manufacturing states (represented by at least one Republican) and see a similar effect:

Kansas: Sam Brownback (R-KS) voted No on banks, Yes on cars. Pat Roberts (R-KS) voted No on banks, No on cars.

Missouri: Kit Bond (R-MO) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Indiana: Evan Bayh (D-IN) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Richard Lugar (R-IN) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter (R-PA) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Bob Casey (D-PA) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Ohio: George Voinovich (R-OH) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Both Republican Maine senators voted for the auto bailout, although they don't hail from a Rust Belt state.

Also, some interesting information from the Center for Responsive Politics: while auto union money went heavily to those voting Yes, total auto industry contributions (automakers, manufacturers, dealers, and unions) still favored those voting No.