How Each Senator Voted - and What It Means: Inside the Senate’s Push to End the Shutdown

On Sunday the Senate cleared a crucial procedural vote to advance a temporary funding measure that would reopen the government and extend funding through January, teeing up a further vote this week-and ultimately a House vote and presidential signature-to formally end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. The procedural step passed only after a handful of Democrats broke with their party to join with most Republicans in moving the bill forward.

Below is a detailed, journalistically framed account of how every senator voted on that procedural motion, why a subset of Democrats crossed the aisle, what the vote means for federal workers and the economy, how it could reshape politics ahead of the next legislative cycle, and what to watch next.

Quick snapshot: what the vote did

The procedural vote was not the final passage of a spending bill; rather, it advanced debate and cleared the way for a subsequent, final vote in the Senate on the funding package that ties short-term appropriations through January to a larger legislative process to fully fund key agencies. If the Senate ultimately passes the bill this week and the House follows, the president can sign it and the shutdown will officially end.

The political drama centered on defections: while most Republicans voted “yes,” several Democrats joined them-giving leadership the margin needed to advance debate. At the same time, a small number of Republicans voted “no,” underscoring continuing intra-party fractures.

How each senator voted (as provided by the roll)

Below is the full roll as you supplied it. In this list, “D” = Democrat, “R” = Republican, “I” = Independent; votes were recorded as yes/no on the procedural motion to advance the funding measure.

• Alsobrooks (MD) D - no

• Baldwin (WI) D - no

• Banks (IN) R - yes

• Barrasso (WY) R - yes

• Bennet (CO) D - no

• Blackburn (TN) R - yes

• Blumenthal (CT) D - no

• Blunt Rochester (DE) D - no

• Booker (NJ) D - no

• Boozman (AR) R - yes

• Britt (AL) R - yes

• Budd (NC) R - yes

• Cantwell (WA) D - no

• Capito (WV) R - yes

• Cassidy (LA) R - yes

• Collins (ME) R - yes

• Coons (DE) D - no

• Cornyn (TX) R - yes

• Cortez Masto (NV) D - yes

• Cotton (AR) R - yes

• Cramer (ND) R - yes

• Crapo (ID) R - yes

• Cruz (TX) R - yes

• Curtis (UT) R - yes

• Daines (MT) R - yes

• Duckworth (IL) D - no

• Durbin (IL) D - yes

• Ernst (IA) R - yes

• Fetterman (PA) D - yes

• Fischer (NE) R - yes

• Gallego (AZ) D - no

• Gillibrand (NY) D - no

• Graham (SC) R - yes

• Grassley (IA) R - yes

• Hagerty (TN) R - yes

• Hassan (NH) D - yes

• Hawley (MO) R - yes

• Heinrich (NM) D - no

• Hickenlooper (CO) D - no

• Hirono (HI) D - no

• Hoeven (ND) R - yes

• Husted (OH) R - yes

• Hyde-Smith (MS) R - yes

• Johnson (WI) R - yes

• Justice (WV) R - yes

• Kaine (VA) D - yes

• Kelly (AZ) D - no

• Kennedy (LA) R - yes

• Kim (NJ) D - no

• King (ME) I - yes

• Klobuchar (MN) D - no

• Lankford (OK) R - yes

• Lee (UT) R - yes

• Luján (NM) D - no

• Lummis (WY) R - yes

• Markey (MA) D - no

• Marshall (KS) R - yes

• McConnell (KY) R - yes

• McCormick (PA) R - yes

• Merkley (OR) D - no

• Moody (FL) R - yes

• Moran (KS) R - yes

• Moreno (OH) R - yes

• Mullin (OK) R - yes

• Murkowski (AK) R - yes

• Murphy (CT) D - no

• Murray (WA) D - no

• Ossoff (GA) D - no

• Padilla (CA) D - no

• Paul (KY) R - no

• Peters (MI) D - no

• Reed (RI) D - no

• Ricketts (NE) R - yes

• Risch (ID) R - yes

• Rosen (NV) D - yes

• Rounds (SD) R - yes

• Sanders (VT) I - no

• Schatz (HI) D - no

• Schiff (CA) D - no

• Schmitt (MO) R - yes

• Schumer (NY) D - no

• Scott (FL) R - yes

• Scott (SC) R - yes

• Shaheen (NH) D - yes

• Sheehy (MT) R - yes

• Slotkin (MI) D - no

• Smith (MN) D - no

• Sullivan (AK) R - yes

• Thune (SD) R - yes

• Tillis (NC) R - yes

• Tuberville (AL) R - yes

• Van Hollen (MD) D - no

• Warner (VA) D - no

• Warnock (GA) D - no

• Warren (MA) D - no

• Welch (VT) D - no

• Whitehouse (RI) D - no

• Wicker (MS) R - yes

• Wyden (OR) D - no

• Young (IN) R - yes

Reading the roll: patterns and surprises

A few clear patterns jump out from the roll:

1. Majority Republican ‘yes’

As expected, most Republicans voted to move the bill forward. Republican leadership relied on near-unified GOP support to carry the procedural motion once a bloc of Democrats joined.

2. A small, decisive group of Democrats voted ‘yes’

Notably, the following Democrats voted yes on the procedural step: Cortez Masto (NV), Durbin (IL), Fetterman (PA), Hassan (NH), Kaine (VA), Rosen (NV), Shaheen (NH). These votes were pivotal in reaching the 60-vote threshold necessary to advance debate. Several of these senators represent states with competitive electorates or specific policy pressures, and their yes votes signaled a pragmatic, constituency-driven calculus.

3. Many Democrats remained ‘no’

A substantial number of Democrats-especially progressives and senators with strong alignment to party messaging-voted no. This reflects ongoing concerns that the deal is a stopgap that defers harder policy fights (notably over healthcare subsidies, immigration, or other spending priorities) to the future.

4. A handful of GOP ‘no’ votes

Most Republicans voted yes, but a few Republicans-most prominently Paul (KY)-voted no, underscoring intra-party tensions. These dissenting Republicans typically represent more libertarian, fiscal-hawk, or anti-establishment wings that resist short-term funding without broader reforms or spending limits.

5. Independents split

Independent senators showed expected splits-King (ME) sided with Republicans/Democrats supporting the advance, while Sanders (VT) voted no, consistent with his progressive stance.

Why a handful of Democrats crossed the aisle

When rank-and-file senators deviate from party unity in a high-stakes procedural vote, motivations are usually a mix of local politics, policy calculation, and constituency pressure. Based on the profile of the Democrats who voted yes, several plausible, non-asserted explanations emerge:

• Constituency pressure and local economies: Senators from swing or economically diverse states may have faced intense calls from federal employees, contractors, and local businesses urging them to reopen government payroll and services.

• Pragmatism vs. principle: Some senators may have judged that reopening government now preserves bargaining leverage to fight policy battles later from a non-shut-down position.

• Electoral consideration: Senators in or near competitive races may have feared electoral fallout from being perceived as prolonging a shutdown that generated voter anger.

• Procedural guarantees: Leadership may have secured commitments-public or private-regarding a future vote on enhanced healthcare subsidies or other priorities, persuading moderates to secure immediate relief first.

None of these reasons replace a senator’s public explanation, but they help explain why a small number of Democrats provided the margin needed to advance debate.

Political and practical implications of the vote

1. Immediate relief for federal workers and services

If the full package clears the Senate and the House and the president signs it, furloughed employees could receive back pay and paused services would restart. The procedural vote signals movement toward that outcome, though completion is not automatic.

2. Deferred policy fights

The deal ties short-term funding to a broader package negotiated later. That means contentious policy issues-healthcare subsidies, border funding, or large program appropriations-are deferred rather than resolved. The political cost may resurface in subsequent negotiations.

3. Political optics and messaging

Both parties will spin the vote. Republicans will highlight legislative progress and pressure relief; Democrats will frame the defections as tactical and emphasize future fights to protect programs. Senators who crossed pick up criticism from parts of their base; those who stood firm pick up praise from progressives.

4. Precursors to House action

The Senate’s procedural advance is only one step: a final Senate vote, then a House passage-where different political dynamics exist-must follow. The House majority’s appetite for the deal, particularly conservative holdouts, will determine the timeline.

5. Potential electoral fallout

How voters perceive the deal-relief now vs. deferred demands later-could influence upcoming campaigns. Senators who voted yes may be targeted in primaries or general election messaging by opponents who portray them as capitulating or pragmatic.

Economic ripple effects: markets, contractors, and communities

The shutdown’s economic toll has been real: suspended federal contracts, lost paychecks, and delayed services harm local economies. Moving the bill forward reduces uncertainty and, if enacted, would restart payrolls and contracting flows-immediately improving household liquidity in towns dependent on federal work.

But the stopgap nature of the measure means businesses and state governments may still face planning uncertainty in coming months, especially for programs that need multi-year appropriations.

Political theater and accountability

In a shutdown standoff, procedural votes become dramatic theatre. This vote’s political theater included:

• floor conferrals and whispered negotiations

• pressure on senators from constituents and interest groups

• public statements and late-night reflections from both leaders and rank-and-file senators

Accountability will follow. Senators who opposed reopening may face criticism for prolonging hardship; senators who supported it may face rebukes for enabling a compromise that deferred larger debates.

What to watch next

1. The final Senate vote-will the chamber pass the underlying funding package this week? The procedural advance makes that possible, but not guaranteed.

2. House response-will the House accept the Senate’s package or demand amendments? The House’s internal dynamics could slow or alter the bill.

3. Presidential signature-once the House passes a final bill, a signature will be required to officially end the shutdown; the White House response and any last-minute demands bear watching.

4. Follow-on legislative fights-the larger package tied to the temporary funding includes promises for votes on extended subsidies and full agency appropriations. Those fights will shape the next legislative months.

5. Local and economic stabilization-how quickly federal payments, grant disbursements, and contractor invoices restart will determine short-term recovery in affected communities.

Deal, delay, or durable solution?

The Senate’s procedural victory is a pragmatic step toward reopening government-and it likely saved federal workers additional weeks of uncertainty. But because the vote advances a short-term patch tied to future negotiations, it does not resolve the structural political rifts that produce shutdowns. The vote’s most immediate virtue is practicality: it reduces human suffering. Its long-term limits are political: it leaves the harder choices for another day.

In the months ahead, voters will judge whether senators who crossed party lines were courageous problem-solvers or political bargain-makers. Party leaders will weigh the political calculus of compromise versus purity. And the federal workforce-temporarily spared further hardship if the deal finalizes-will watch closely how quickly the promises on funding translate into paychecks and services.